9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s bill, payment made for the transaction by bank statement, transportation details, loading and unloading charges paid to the cooly, stock register extract, delivery challans received and issued reconciling the stock register, etc. - t this juncture, this Court would point out that the above observations made by the respondent in the impugned assessment orders, were not forming part of the pre-revision notice. In other words, these details were not called for from the petitioner while issuing the pre-revision notice. Therefore, if the respondent had any doubts with regard to the documents produced by the petitioner or the details furnished by them or if, in his opinion, they are insufficient, the Assessing Officer should have issued a notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cross verification of the annexures of the buyer as well as the seller as per Annexure I details, in the show cause notice, it was stated that as per the web report received from intranet and as per the cross verification with the other end dealer, the dealer at the other end i.e the selling dealer has not shown their sales in their Annexure II for the purchases effected by them and which have been reflected in the monthly returns in Annexure I filed by them. Therefore, it was proposed that the difference in purchase turnover is liable to be reversed as per the details furnished in the tabulated statement enclosed in the sworn statement obtained from the petitioner by the officials of the Enforcement Wing during the surprise inspection. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to certain refund, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. No.31164 of 2016 to direct the respondent to quantify the amount of refund, which has now accumulated and to issue a cheque in their favour. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 7.9.2016 with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.8.2016. At that juncture, the impugned orders have been issued to the petitioner. 8. So far as the issue relating to liability of cross verification is concerned, it is seen that the respondent referred to the document and the details furnished by the petitioner, but curiously enough confirmed the proposal by stating that the monthly returns filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that as the fact of remittance of central excise duty is not in dispute, the petitioner will be liable to pay tax. 12. However, the Assessing Officer has not dealt with the issue raised by the petitioner that they have not paid central excise duty on clearance of goods, but much after the clearance, when the demand was raised, they paid central excise duty out of their own funds. Further, this Court does not propose to render any finding on the said issue and it is left to the respondent to consider the same in accordance with law. 13. In the light of the above, the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned assessment orders are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
