9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d grounds would be examined on merits by the OHA. It is beyond the scope of the present appeal for this Court to examine the correctness of the said order. Any opinion expressed at this stage on any of the above contentions of the Assessee might prejudice the proceedings before the OHA and, therefore, the Court leaves open all the grounds that the Assessee has urged to be taken up before the OHA as and when the appeal is filed before it by the Assessee. - Decided against Assessee. - ST. APPL. No. 64/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2015 - S. Muralidhar And. Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Rajesh Jain, Mr Virag Tiwari and Mr K J Bhat, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Satyakam, Additional Standing Counsel, GNCTD ORDER CM No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two firms were not traceable. The Assessing Authority was asked to again examine this aspect in the light of the documents stated to be in the possession of the Assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the OHA, the Appellant went before the Tribunal, which has, by the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2015 reiterated the order of the OHA and given directions for remand proceedings to take place before the Assessing Authority. 6. In this appeal, on 11th December 2014, the Court passed the following order: Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we frame the following substantial question of law: Whether the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax was right in holding that the assessee would not get credit of the Value Added Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons that were obvious from the order dated 11th December 2014. Accordingly, the Court directed that the Assessing Authority should complete the said exercise within a period of four months from that date. 8. It is pursuant to that order that the Assessing Authority has passed an order dated 10th November, 2015 in which he has concluded that it was established beyond doubt that the transactions involving the two firms were sham/bogus transactions and, therefore, the benefit under Section 9(1) of the DVAT for input tax credit on the said purchases could not be allowed to the Assessee. 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant has urged several grounds to assail the order dated 10th November 2015 before this Court. Amongst the grievances ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
