9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mers and was holder of recognition certificate (Form 19), which was surrendered by him along with the application dated 2nd of April, 1990 informing the department. It has closed the business w.e.f. 31st March, 1990. It appears that the dealer/opposite party on the basis of application dated 31st March, 1987 applied for addition of five items in the recognition certificate before the then Trade Tax Officer, Sri T.G. Gupta. The filing of such application is very much disputed by the department. The further case of the dealer/opposite party is that on the basis of so called application dated 31st March, 1987 the Assessing Officer vide its order dated 10.12.1991 added five items in recognition certificate w.e.f. 31st March, 1987. 3. In contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Standing Counsel and the Counsel for the dealer/opposite party was permitted to examine the same. 7. The Tribunal has set aside the order of the authorities below on the following grounds :- (1) The departmental representative during the course of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal could not produce any material to show that any departmental enquiry was initiated or held against the erring officer, who made addition in the recognition certificate unauthorisedly and in illegal manner by fabricating the recognition certificate. (2) The relevant records were not produced before the Tribunal and as such it has expressed its helplessness to give a firm opinion on the question of fabrication/manipulation in the record. 8. Prefaced wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on there is absolutely no dispute, but there are certain well known exceptions. It has been judicially held by a catena of cases that if a finding of fact recorded by the last fact finding authority is perverse or against the material on record or it has ignored the relevant material, the said finding can be scrutinized by the High Court and is liable to be set aside. To find out as to whether the finding of the Tribunal is vitiated or not, it is necessary to examine the orders of the two authorities below and the findings recorded by them. The Assessing Officer directed the dealer/opposite party to produce the original receipt of filing of the application dated 31st March, 1987. In reply thereto, it was submitted by the dealer that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate. Therefore, the certificate could be amended only on an application of the dealer. Therefore, to say that filing of the application was not material is not correct. 11. Learned Counsel for the dealer/opposite party drawn the attention of this Court towards item No. 8 of the reply, wherein it is stated that the statement of the dealer/opposite party was recorded before making the amendment in the recognition certificate. It is submitted that the recognition certificate was amended on the application filed by the dealer/opposite party and after recording his statement. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for this Court to record any definite finding on the question as to whether there is sufficient material on record to justify the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
