9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e enquiry made with respect to the first selling dealer, the revenue authorities also referred to certain other enquiries made from the seller from whom the assessee made the purchases - though normally the Court may have remanded the matter to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after allowing the assessee an opportunity to rebut the evidence relied upon by the revenue, however, in view of the fact that the present proceedings have arisen from the provisional assessment proceedings and it has been stated at the bar that the final assessment proceedings have not yet been concluded, the present revisions are disposed of with a direction that it shall remain open to the assessing authority to confront the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee was engaged in trading in leather and shoe material. During the months of April to August 2016, the assessee disclosed to have purchased goods from M/s. Rajiv Enterprises; M/s. Chandni Enterprises; M/s. Maa Ambe International; M/s. Rahman Overseas; and M/s. Gold Star Leather Finishers against the tax invoices. Based on such purchases, the assessee raised claim of ITC. 5. The claim of ITC so made was rejected by the assessing authority in part while making the provisional assessment order for the months of April to August 2016 on the reason that the seller M/s. Rajiv Enterprises had made purchase of the goods from one M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders whose registration had been cancelled from before. Similar rejections were made on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claims to have made the purchases never acquired any goods on which ITC was claimed. He, therefore submits, the entire transactions claimed by the assessee were sham transaction and that no real goods were ever sold. In that regard, the Tribunal is stated to have glossed over the evidence. 10. Responding to the above, learned counsel for the assessee submits, merely because the first seller may have been found to be non genuine, is irrelevant to adjudicate the claim of ITC made by the assessee. For that purpose, an enquiry should have been made only with the seller from whom the assessee made the purchases. Insofar as that dealer had been found to be genuine and existing, the claim of ITC could not be disallowed. 11. Having heard lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an opportunity to rebut the evidence relied upon by the revenue, however, in view of the fact that the present proceedings have arisen from the provisional assessment proceedings and it has been stated at the bar that the final assessment proceedings have not yet been concluded, the present revisions are disposed of with a direction that it shall remain open to the assessing authority to confront the assessee with all adverse material that may have been collected by the revenue authorities with respect to ITC claimed by the assessee, in those proceedings and to accordingly pass an assessment order in accordance with law. 14. In view of the fact that the rejection of ITC was made on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry in provisional asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
