9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Appeal No. 808 of 2016, Civil Application (OJ) No. 546 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2016 - M. R. Shah And B. N. Karia, JJ. Mr Hiren J Trivedi, Advocate, Mr SP Majmudar for the Appellant ORDER ( Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah ) 1.00. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 4/4/2016 as well as consequential final order passed in Second Appeal No.159 of 2016 dated 4/5/2016. By the consequential final order dated 4/5/2016, the learned tribunal has dismissed the said appeal on non-deposit of amount of pre-deposit as ordered earlier vide order dated 4/4/2016, the assessee has preferred the present appeal with the following prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., appellant herein preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority vide order dated 27/1/2016 dismissed the appeal on merits specifically observing that the A.O. has rightly disallowed the input tax credit on the purchase made by the appellant from M/s. Shriji Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham, as the transaction of sale and purchase by and between the appellant and said M/s. Shriji Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham were not genuine. 2.03. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the first appellate authority dated 27/1/2016, the appellant preferred Second Appeal No.159 of 2016 before the learned tribunal. That by speaking and detailed order dated 4/4/2016, the learned tribunal directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that while directing the appellant to deposit ₹ 29,29,979/- towards the amount of pre-deposit, the learned tribunal has not considered the merits of the case and has not considered the fact that the order passed by the A.O. confirmed by the first appellate authority is not sustainable and that the learned A.O. has wrongly denied the input tax credit of ₹ 29,29,979/- which the appellant claimed on the purchases made by it from M/s. Shriji Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham. 3.03. Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that in fact before the learned tribunal the appellant did produce certain transportation receip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through and considered the order passed by the A.O. as well as first appellate authority. 4.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the A.O. while passing the assessment order raised demand of ₹ 94,08,163/- which inter-alia includes tax demand of ₹ 29,29,979/-, interest of ₹ 20,83,215/- and penalty of ₹ 43,94,969/-. The A.O. disallowed the input tax credit claimed by the appellant on the transaction with M/s. Shriji Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham on the ground that the transactions between the appellant and M/s. Shriji Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham were not genuine. No evidence was produced by the appellant before the A.O. to prove genuineness of the transactions with M/s. Shriji Overseas Pvt. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal has dismissed the appeal, thereafter it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error. 4.05. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in directing to deposit ₹ 29,29,979/- towards the amount of pre-deposit. A detailed, speaking and reasoned order has been passed by the learned tribunal after considering the material on record directing the appellant to deposit ₹ 29,29,979/- towards the amount of pre-deposit. 4.06. Before the learned tribunal, the appellant produced some transportation receipts of Sahjanand Transport, Gandhidham, however, the same were not produced before the A.O. and/or even before the first app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd., Gandhidham are not genuine and it has been found that the appellant is indulging into billing activities only. 5.00. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances when the appellant has failed to deposit ₹ 29,29,979/- towards the amount of pre-deposit as ordered earlier vide order dated 4/4/2016 and when the learned tribunal has dismissed the said appeal on non-deposit of amount of pre-deposit, no substantial question of law arise. Under the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned tribunal. Under the circumstances, present appeal deserves to be dismissed as no substantial question of law arise and is accordingly dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VAT & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
