9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countant of the dealer-firm. The findings of fact were not shown to be erroneous. Even otherwise, on merits, the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) has noticed that against the gross taxable turnover of ₹ 1,55,42,195/-, the dealer was in possession and had produced VAT C-4 and tax invoices amounting to ₹ 1,55,04,710/- and wanted the same to be accepted in appeal stage. The dealer was entitled to the benefit of input tax credit and the liability could have been fastened only on the remaining amount. Furthermore, the appeal is barred by 345 days. Accordingly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The reasons mentioned in the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 2003? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the dealer was registered on 5.10.2006 under Section 11 of the Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessment for the year 2006-07 was framed exparte by the assessing authority under Section 15(4) of the Act vide order dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure A-4) by creating an additional demand of ₹ 6,23,689/-. The input tax claim of the dealer was rejected as it failed to submit VAT C-4/original tax invoices as required under Section 8 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the dealer filed an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure A-3) remanded the case back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contended by the respondent before the First Appellate Authority that the service of notice was made on one Manoj Kumar, Accountant of the appellant firm. It was also contended that the first notice in form VAT N-2 was issued for 21.11.2008 and then for 23.06.2009 and lastly for 23.03.2010. However, it is not clear and understood as to why no action was taken by the Assessing Authority on the notices for 21.11.2008 and 23.06.2009. He could have proceeded ex-parte on the basis of these notices if served and why he waited for two years. It shows the casual attitude and working on the part of the office of the Assessing Authority. The respondent also could not establish the identity of the person on whom the notice was claimed to have been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings of fact were not shown to be erroneous. Even otherwise, on merits, the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) has noticed that against the gross taxable turnover of ₹ 1,55,42,195/-, the dealer was in possession and had produced VAT C-4 and tax invoices amounting to ₹ 1,55,04,710/- and wanted the same to be accepted in appeal stage. The dealer was entitled to the benefit of input tax credit and the liability could have been fastened only on the remaining amount. 7. Furthermore, the appeal is barred by 345 days. Accordingly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The reasons mentioned in the application do not fall within the expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
