9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whether the goods which were seized were actually accounted for in the books of accounts of the dealer or not. The assessing authority, as noted above, primarily rested his order on the various discrepancies which according to him came to light from the explanation put forth by the dealer and the statement of the driver who was accompanying the vehicle. In the opinion of this Court, these discrepancies would not of their own and standing alone satisfy the enquiry which the authority is liable to undertake in order to sustain the levy of penalty under Section 48 (5) of the 2008 Act - this Court is of the considered view that the matter would merit a remand for fresh consideration by the assessing authority - revision allowed by way of rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the driver of the vehicle, the goods were in fact coming from Jamshedpur and were bound directly for the premises of the dealer at Jaunpur. The driver is further alleged to have stated that the goods had been loaded at the factory of Tata Steel at Jamshedpur. The assessing authority has further noted the discrepancy in the value as disclosed in the invoices which were initially found to be accompanying the goods at the time of seizure and the subsequent invoices which were issued in support of the sale which is said to have taken place on 18 July 2011. What weighed with the assessing authority further was the discrepancy in the weight of the goods as disclosed in the invoices and as found upon actual verification. On a consideration of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a dealer becomes liable to be penalized in case the authority finds that the goods were omitted from being shown in the accounts or where the goods are not found to be traceable to a bonafide dealer or in a situation where the goods are found to be not properly accounted for by any dealer. The provision empowers the respondents to penalize a dealer even in a case where he comes to a conclusion that the value of the goods as disclosed in the accompanying documents has been deliberately suppressed with an intent to evade payment of tax. What however is of significance is that the section itself obliges the authority to be satisfied with regard to the occurrence of one or the other infraction referred to above having occurred. To put it d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the driver who was accompanying the vehicle. In the opinion of this Court, these discrepancies would not of their own and standing alone satisfy the enquiry which the authority is liable to undertake in order to sustain the levy of penalty under Section 48 (5) of the 2008 Act. The enquiry envisaged to be undertaken is not as to how many discrepancies or inconsistencies are found or identified in the explanation of the dealer but as to whether the goods have been dutifully and truthfully accounted for, whether they are traceable to a bona fide dealer or whether their value has been suppressed and whether the action of the dealer was with intention to evade payment of tax. The Court finds that none of these aspects have been adverted to or co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
