9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e future course of action - purchase from the suspicious or cancelled dealers - Held that:- Given the contradictory stands of the Department on the one hand and the Petitioner on the other , it is directed that within four weeks from today the AVATO/concerned Assessing Officer (AO) of Ward No. 8 will issue a notice to the Petitioner setting out the details of the dates on which purchases are supposed to be have been made during the first quarter of 2013-14 by the Petitioner from any of the above four entities and enclose the supporting documents if any. The AVATO/AO will also disclose in the said notice any other information in his possession leading to the conclusion that either any or all of the above four entities were either not functio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that on 15th February 2014 the aforementioned default notice of assessment of tax, interest and penalty were reviewed and the demand was reduced to nil. On 15th May 2014 another review order was passed affirming the earlier order dated 15th February 2014. 4. On 29th September 2015 the impugned default notices of assessment of tax, interest and penalty under Section 9 of the CST Act were issued for the first 2013-14. In terms of the said notice, additional demand of tax and interest of ₹ 2,66,58,413 was raised. The penalty notice sought to levy penalty of ₹ 2,03,07,463. It was alleged that the Petitioner had made purchases from the following entities: (i) M/s. Active Suppliers (ii) M/s. Classic Sales India (iii) M/s. Moha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous ones and that this was system generated. 9. Consequently, the Court has no hesitation in declaring the impugned notices of assessment tax, interest and penalty both dated 29th September 2015 under Section 9 of the CST Act as well as the subsequent notice of default assessment of tax and interest under Section 32 of the DVAT Act dated 31st May 2016 to be invalid. They are accordingly quashed. 10. The question now is about the future course of action. As far as the first quarter of 2013 is concerned, Mr. Jain categorically states that the Petitioner has neither made any purchase nor any sale and therefore there is no question of a demand of tax under the DVAT Act being raised. The case of the Department as is evident from the fres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
