9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of engine or chassis in the name of third parties/prospective customers were placed on record. The appellant produced the contracts with (1) Maldebhai Masribhai Chavda, (2) Sadurbhai Kalubhai Manek, (3) Sureshbhai Madhavdas Danidharia in support of his case that they entered into contract with the appellant for assembling the rickshaw, however, the appellant did not produce the bill of engine or chassis in the name of the aforesaid persons. He did not produce any other documentary evidences in support of his case that the spare parts, engine, chassis, etc., were purchased by the prospective customers and that the appellant was doing the job-work. In absence of any supporting documents/documentary evidences, the reassessing officer as well as the Tribunal, both have rightly disbelieved the case on behalf of the appellant that he was doing the job-work and assembling the rickshaw from the spare parts purchased by the prospective customers. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even the registration of the rickshaws were by the appellant himself. It cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error in confirming the reassessment order. The finding of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusive of tax, interest and penalty. 2.1 Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the appellant preferred first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Appeal-6, Bhavnagar, and the first appellate authority dismissed the said appeal as the appellant did not make part payment. 2.2 That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the first appellate authority as well as the reassessment order, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Tribunal and by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said second appeal. Hence, the appellant has preferred the present tax appeal. 3. Ms. Gargi Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in dismissing the appeal on confirming the order passed by the AO as well as the first appellate authority confirming the duty liability of ₹ 82,30,449. 3.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the reassessment order has been passed by the AO incorporating the details of the show-cause notice issued by the Central Excise Department-DGCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job-work and no manufacturing activity with respect to 166 vehicles in question was carried out. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present appeal. 4. On the other hand, Shri Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the present appeal has submitted that as such there are concurrent findings of fact given by the authorities below with respect to evasion of tax by the appellant, which are on appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that all the authorities below, i.e., AO as well as the Tribunal have concurrently not accepted the case on behalf of the appellant that with respect to 166 vehicles in question, the appellant was only doing the job-work. 4.1 It is further submitted by Shri Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader that as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, reassessment order is not passed solely on the basis of the show-cause notice issued by the Excise Department. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the reassessment order has been passed on the basis of material on record and after giving fullest opportunity to the appellant. 4.2 It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y now and then, that is not the sole basis for the conclusion of the order. It seems that the reassessing authority had taken support of the statement of the appellant before the excise authority to come to some conclusion. If the reassessment order is examined, it is also observed in the beginning that the appellant was issued notice for reassessment in form 303 and the tax consultant of the appellant had remained present and had represented its case. Hence, the order of the reassessing authority does not seem to be solely based on the notice issued by the Excise Department. The contention, in that behalf of the learned advocate, therefore, cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Futura Ceramics Pvt. Ltd.[2013] 62 VST 488 (Guj) relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 5.2 It is required to be noted that the reassessing officer has found that the sales were shown in the books of 160 Chhakdo rickshaws and it was found that actually the appellant had cleared 326 Chhakdo rickshaws. Thus, 166 Chhakdo rickshaws were in excess, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
