9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record that M/s Trade Impex in their return have also denied the said transaction and a confirmation was sought in this regard from the Assistant Commissioner, who by means of report dated 06.02.2012, confirmed the fact that no such transaction has been undertaken by M/s Trade Impex. Once the Department itself could not verify the said transaction, then the same cannot be included in the turnover of the revisionist who is the other contracting party - there is no possibility that the transaction in question has ever taken place and in absence of any such evidence, satisfaction recorded by the Tribunal is on the face of it infirm and is liable to be interfered by this Court. Revision allowed. - Trade Tax Revision No. - 53 of 2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax on the transaction on the basis of report of SIB, Commercial Tax Department ( hereinafter referred to as the SIB ), where during survey bill was found declaring purchase of 4700Kg. Betel Nut valued at ₹ 1,51,040/-. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the assessee is dealer engaged in business of betel nuts used as ingredient in 'paan' and 'gutka'. The SIB has made a survey of shop of revisionist, however on the said date the shop was closed. On the basis of report submitted by the SIB, a show cause notice was issued to the revisionist to produce books of account. In the show cause notice it was stated that the revisionist has purchased 4700Kg. of betel nut from M/s Trade Impe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods stated therein and the said transaction has been brought to tax. 10. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Revenue sought to bring the said transaction to tax relating to M/s Trade Impex and in this regard a report was sought from the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, who by means of report dated 06.02.2012, informed that M/s Trade Impex has not shown any sale to the revisionist relating to month of November, 2010 and confirmed that no sale in the said month with regard to the revisionist can be traced. On the basis of aforesaid report dated 06.02.2012, the transaction in question was not brought to tax with regard to M/s Trade Impex. 11. It has been urged by learned counsel for the revisionist tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsaction, then the same cannot be included in the turnover of the revisionist who is the other contracting party. 16. It is needless to say that on the basis of certain stray document, taxability cannot be deduced. There has to be some actionable, verifiable and reliable piece of evidence, before concluding that certain transaction is liable to be taxed. 17. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that there is no possibility that the transaction in question has ever taken place and in absence of any such evidence, satisfaction recorded by the Tribunal is on the face of it infirm and is liable to be interfered by this Court. 18. In the light of above, the impugned order dated 30.03.2015, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
