9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-State purchases of high speed diesel. The impugned order without any proof of nexus of the petitioner with the alleged purchases could not have been affirmed by the revisional authority. Thus considered view while passing the impugned order the revisional authority has totally ignored its earlier remand order. The assessing officer has also not decided the matter in accordance with the directions contained in the remand order passed by the revisional authority. Appeal allowed. - W.P. No. 454 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2008 - SHANTANU KEMKAR , J. ORDER:- SHANTANU KEMKAR J. By this petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the common order dated November 3, 2003 pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the alleged purchases by approving the petitioner's contentions in respect of following aspects: (a) Particulars as to who had filled in the delivery order. (b) Particulars of the transportation of the goods. (c) Details about place of loading and delivery of the goods. (d) Details of the persons to whom the goods were delivered. (e) Particulars of the mode of payment. (f) Detail of 'C' forms issued against the supply of goods and particularly the name and the designation of the person signing the same and also the 'C' form no. and the date. After the aforesaid remand order the assessing officer completed a fresh assessment and without going into the matter in the light of directions/ bservations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh it was not obligatory upon it to have discharged the negative burden, still various details were obtained by it from the Indian Oil Corporation and the particulars of bank draft through which payments were made were also obtained and the said details were submitted before the revisional authority still the revisional authority merely on the basis of indent for delivery orders has illegally presumed that the purchases in question have been made by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the conclusion of the revisionary authority is contrary to the conclusion arrived at by it in earlier round of litigation. Thus according to the petitioner the impugned order of the revisional authority deserves to be quashed and the matter requires to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to have inquired into the nexus and was required to prove the petitioner's nexus with the alleged inter-State purchases before holding the petitioner guilty of alleged inter-State purchases of high speed diesel. The impugned order without any proof of nexus of the petitioner with the alleged purchases could not have been affirmed by the revisional authority. In my considered view while passing the impugned order the revisional authority has totally ignored its earlier remand order. The assessing officer has also not decided the matter in accordance with the directions contained in the remand order passed by the revisional authority. Accordingly the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of the revisiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
