9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s given by the assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that findings are illegal or perverse in any manner. Thus, no substantial question of law arises - Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons in judgment of honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in case cited as Aggarwal Iron Store v. State of Punjab[2010] 35 VST 200 (P and H):[2009] 34 PHT 159 that no best judgment assessment can be framed if the terms of notice are complied with? (viii) Whether the penalty imposed under section 48 of the Act for suppression is not illegal? (ix) Whether penalty can be levied on assumed turnover in best judgment assessment or it is leviable on 'definite information' on 'turnover' allegedly not disclosed?" 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is a proprietorship concern. It is engaged in the trading of iron and steels goods which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocumentary evidence. In response to the notices, the assessee appeared and requested for cross-examination of the transporters and documents in possession of the assessing authority. No opportunity was provided to the assessee. Vide order dated August 31, 1994, annexure A4, assessment order was passed. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad (JETC (A)). Vide order dated June 30, 2003, annexure A5, the JETC(A), rejected the appeal of the appellant. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on August 28, 2003. Vide order dated January 3, 2007, annexure A8, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The appellant filed review application dated Jul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All the details were confronted to him to the annexure attached with the show-cause notice. As per the documents impounded, the same bill numbers have been issued in the name of local dealers whereas as per barrier's record from the same bill these have been dispatched to Delhi. The details have been enumerated in the impugned order in detail by the first appellate authority. Hence the argument given by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessing authority was not in possession of definite information is not substantiated by the facts on record. It is also a fact as borne out from the record that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on October 4, 1993 and on one occasion Shri D.B. Garg, advocate appeared without the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Kerala v. M.M. Mathew[1978] 42 STC 348 (SC), Maharaj Mal Hans Raj v. State of Punjab[1981] 48 STC 369 (P and H) and Jai Ram Hans Raj v. State of Haryana[1973] 32 STC 107 (P and H) are not applicable in the present case because the assessment is not based on mere suspicions but on the facts as collected from the extraneous sources. In fact, it is a case which is based on the definite information and facts and different points of law decided in different circumstances will not automatically be applicable in this case. The order of the Assessing Authority is detailed one and he has given the date, commodity, quantity, truck no, bill no. and amount involved in these transactions. It is very clear from these details that the appellant has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
