9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is dealing in the business of TMT bar and during the course of its business, it sold goods to one M/s. Bharat Iron Store, Alwar and the said goods were being transmitted on September 29, 2007 in vehicle No. RJ-29-G-1629 owned by M/s. Rajdhani Transport Company, Nai Mandi, Bharatpur. It was the contention of the assessee that along with the said vehicle, bill No. 986 dated October 28, 2007 as also the builty of the said transport company No. 485 dated October 28, 2007, were also available which were found on interception by the officers of the Anti Evasion Wing at Rajgarh Road, Alwar and prima facie, the bill and builty appeared to be bogus and suspicious under section 76(6) of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me but the writing was entirely different and it appeared that the office copy was prepared later on. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the penalty has been imposed on mere surmises and conjectures as well as assumption and presumption and in a case of penalty like this, merely on the basis of suspicion, penalty cannot be imposed. He further contended that there was no difference at all in between the original as well as the office copy and one could not have been faulted merely on the basis that there was variance between the two. He further contended that there was no intention of tax evasion, all the relevant documents were available with the vehicle and there is no occasion for disbelieving the invoice which was pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without payment of tax and the assessee would have gone scot-free and would have destroyed the original after goods having been delivered. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and in my view, no interference is required in the order of the Tax Board as the Tax Board on finding of fact has come to the conclusion that there was vital difference in writing in the original invoice viz-a-viz the office copy. If the bill was prepared simultaneously with the carbon (as in this case), there could be a variation of the line as on account of non-placing the carbon copy in a proper manner in the office copy line may shift down on sides but there cannot be a difference in the writing which has been noticed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
