9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isionist has rightly been put to tax and penalty thereon. Revision dismissed. - Trade Tax Revision No. - 84 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2020 - Alok Mathur, J. For the Revisionist : Mudit Agarwal,Jitendra Kushwaha, N C Mishra For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. N.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. This revision has been filed against the judgment of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-1, Lucknow dated 15.02.2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist has been rejected. It has been submitted by the the learned counsel for the petitioner that revisionist is running a nursing home pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who submitted a reply on 16.03.09 and on the basis of the reply submitted by the revisionist after due notice to the revisionist the assessment was carried out by the Assessing Authority by means of order dated 30.06.2011. The Assessing Authority levied tax on the sale of medicines by the revisionist. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Authority dated 30.06.2011 the revisionist preferred a first appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) who partly allowed the appeal filed by the revisionist. The First Appellate Authority reduced the turnover of the petitioner by ₹ 21,145/- of the tax assessed by the assessing authority while upholding the remaining order of the assessing authority. 6. Aggrieved by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the revenue on the other hand has supported the order passed by the Tribunal, he has submitted that during the SIB it was found that the revisionist was in fact selling medicines and this was confirmed from the statements given by the people who were found during survey. He has submitted that petitioner did not produce any documents which could indicate that the money was charged by the Nursing Home in a consolidate manner and even the price of drugs were included in the price so charges by the Nursing Home in absence of any material or documents or bills, the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below cannot be said to be perverse and therefore the revision deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that facts have not been correctly interpreted and therefore the value of the drugs dispensed to the patients have been put to tax. 13. The Tribunal after considering the aforesaid submission of the revisionist have recorded that revisionist could not produce any documents either before the Assessing Authority, First Appellate Authority nor in the Second Appeal from which it could be deciphered or it could be evidenced that the medicines were being sold only to the inhouse patients and they were not being separately charged for the same. He has upheld the order of the Assessing Authority, in this regard. It is relevant to submit that after having perused the order of the Assessing Authority, the first appellate authority as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not deserve to be considered afresh in this revision and therefore this point is also decided against revisionist and in favour of the revenue. 16. Last submission of the counsel for the revisionist was that the documents seized by the SIB were never provided to him. In support of his submission the counsel for the revisionist has submitted in the written submission filed before the Tribunal and specifically to paragraph No.15 it has been stated that papers so seized at the time of survey dated 21.02.2009 were never returned to us up till now. So the entries could not be explained either before the Assessing Authority nor before the Appellate Authority. 17. In this regard counsel for the revenue has submitted that the reply su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
