9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... genuineness of the transactions - when the appellant has failed to satisfy and/or prove genuineness of the transactions, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in directing the appellant to deposit ₹ 13 Lacs (approximately 10% of the total demand, excluding interest and penalty), which calls for interference of this Court. No substantial question of law arise in the present appeals - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - TAX APPEAL NO. 255 of 2017 With CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 217 of 2017 In TAX APPEAL NO. 255 of 2017 With TAX APPEAL NO. 256 of 2017 With CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 218 of 2017 In TAX APPEAL NO. 256 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 18-4-2017 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the appellant are not genuine and disallowing Input Tax Credit only because registration of the vendors have been cancelled ab-initio? (iv). Whether the Hon ble Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in not appreciating the fact that the appellant has not been intimated the date of cancellation of registration of vendors neither the order of cancellation of registration has been provided nor the date of publication of such order on the website of the department have been communicated to the appellant ? (v). Whether the Hon ble Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in not appreciating that the order of the lower appellate authority was illegal and the assessments made were not sustainable in law ? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No.850 of 2012 as well as the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal directing the appellant to deposit ₹ 13 Lacs towards predeposit. 3.02. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that as in earlier round of litigation the Division Bench of this Court granted unconditional stay and directed the learned tribunal to decide the appeal on merits without insisting for any predeposit and therefore, in the second round of litigation, the learned tribunal is not justified in directing the appellant to deposit any amount by way of pre-deposit. However, it is required to be noted that after the order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . At this stage it is required to be noted that even the concerned dealers from whom the appellant alleged to have purchased the goods, have not paid any tax. Under the circumstances, there is no question of claiming any Input Tax Credit when the dealer from whom the appellant has purchased the goods have failed to pay any tax. In any case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and more particularly when the appellant has failed to prove genuineness of the transactions with the dealers whose registration came to be cancelled ab-initio and even if the case of the appellant is accepted that he could not have been denied Input Tax Credit on the ground that the dealers from whom he had purchased goods, their registrations have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
