9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority that the findings as aforenoted with regard to figures disclosed before the Additional Commissioner and the Assessing Authority and the statement given, are incorrect or the findings recorded in this regard are perverse. The applicants have also not filed their audited balance sheet and trading results to demonstrate financial hardship in depositing even 20% of the disputed amount of tax. Prima facie I find that the Assessing Authority has given sufficient reason to come to the conclusion of evaded purchases and sales. Prima facie, I also find that sufficient basis has been given by the assessing authority to determine the quantum of evaded purchases and sales. The appeals against the assessment orders are pending before the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant's company is tight and the company is not in a position to deposit the un-stayed amount of disputed tax. Under the circumstances, he submits that 100% amount of disputed tax should have been stayed by the Tribunal. He submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal is erroneous, and therefore, deserves to be set aside, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi, (2009) 5 SCC 208 and Mehsana Dist. Co-Op. Milk P.U. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2003(154) E.L.T. 347 (S.C.). 3. Sri B.K. Pandey submits that detail reasons after due consideration of relevant evidences and material on record have been recorded by the assessing authority to come to the conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side the country of ₹ 20,57,80,51,344.00. Goods wroth ₹ 3,14,38,15,927/- were received by sock transfer. Thus total receipt of goods by import and stock transfer was disclosed at ₹ 23,72,18,67,271/-. U.P. sale was disclosed at ₹ 4,43,96,39,328/- and central sales including stock transfer was disclosed at ₹ 20,65,39,01,174/-. Thus total sales (U.P. Central) was disclosed at ₹ 25,09,35,40,502/-. The assessing authority found that w.e.f. 29th August, 2014, the assessee availed facility of downloading declaration Form for import i.e. Form No. 38. Undispudately, the applicant has not produced before the assessing authority the register in Form XLI as mandatorily required under Rule 56(9) of the U.P. VAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3415 Form-38. The assessing authority thus found that the figures of import disclosed by the applicant at ₹ 2372.19 crores is incorrect as according to their own disclosure of facts before the Additional Commissioner import of ₹ 3418.93 was admitted by use 2110 Form-38 and subsequently, in reply dated 18th July, 2014 by use of 3415 Form-38 the import was disclosed at ₹ 4844.98 crores. The assessing Authority also found that as per disclosed figure, the average import of goods per form comes to about ₹ 1.50 crores. Repeated use of several Form-38 by the applicant was also found by the assessing authority which according to the applicant happened only in respect of 12 Form-38. Besides, this several discrepancies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay of the disputed amount to the extent of 80%. 11. Still feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of stay granted by the Tribunal, the applicants have filed these two revisions, under Section 58 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. 12. Prima facie, I find that the assessing authority has given detail reasons based on evidences on record including own documents of the applicant, with regard to the evaded purchases and sales. Brief facts in this regard have already been noted above. The Assessing Authority has relied upon the figures disclosed by the applicants at different stages. The Assessing Authority has also found that the applicant-assessee has not maintained register in Form-XLI under Rule 56(9) of the Rules. 13. Learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Central Excise and another, (2006) 13 SCC 347, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal, (1985) 1 SCC 260 and Siliguri Municipality and others Vs. Amalendu Das Others, (1984) 2 SCC 436, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 15. The judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Gupta ( supra) and in the case of Mehsana Dist. Co-Op. Milk P.U. Ltd.(supra) are of no help to the applicants, inasmuch as neither the prima facie case nor the balance of convenience has been found in favour of the applicants. Even financial hardship could also not be demonstrated by the applicants by any documentary evidence . 16. Both the revisions are wholly misconceived. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
