9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained as the Tribunal was required to examine the entire material on record before concluding whether there was any attempt to evade tax on the part of the dealer. - Matter remanded back. - VATAP No. 134 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate For The Respondent : Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, AAG, Haryana. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing VATAP Nos. 134 and 148 of 2012 as it was not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the issues involved therein are identical. For brevity, the facts are being taken f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same are contrary to the facts of the case? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty levied under Section 37(6) of the HGST Act even though the transaction in question would be an interstate sale as recorded by the AETO for which the provisions of CST Act have not been invoked? 4. The appellant-dealer is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of foodgrains on intra-state as well as inter-state basis. It regularly makes purchases of mustard seed from National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (NAFED), a Government of India Undertaking. All the payments made to NAFED and received from the customers were through banking channels. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dated 25.11.2003 (Annexure A-8) upheld the order of the AETO and dismissed the appeal. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal along with stay application (Annexure P-9 Colly) before the Tribunal. The appellant also produced the ledger account (Annexure A-10) before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal vide order dated 11.4.2012 (Annexure A-11) dismissed the appeal holding that the statement of the driver was sufficient to prove that there was an attempt to evade tax. Hence, the present appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had upheld the orders of AETO and JETC(A) primarily on the ground that the statement of the driver which was recorded by the authorities at the time of checking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
