9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner, it was not considered by the respondent. The authority proceeded on the basis that the seller has proved the cash purchase made by the petitioner. On the other hand, the fact remains that there are no substantiating materials to prove the same. In the absence of proof of purchase made by the petitioner, the purchase omissions attributed to the petitioner based on the inspection rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 and 31.07.2019. The Enforcement Wing Officers of the respondent department conducted a surprise inspection at the business premises of the petitioner / dealer on 10.12.2014 and found purchase omission of ₹ 54,75,982/- for the assessment year 2010-2011; ₹ 22,42,643/- upto 11.07.2011; and ₹ 68,18,036/- from 12.07.2011 to 31.03.2012. Pursuant to the same, revision notice was iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ested for examination of the Seller namely Valli and Sons. During cross-examination of the Partner of Valli and Sons, would deposed that he could not produce any substantiating material to show that the goods were sold only to the petitioner and none else. It leads to an inference that Valli and Sons will make entries in the registers that they sold the goods to the dealers, even if any Tom, Dick ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiating materials to prove the same. In the absence of proof of purchase made by the petitioner, the purchase omissions attributed to the petitioner based on the inspection report cannot be sustained. 4. The respondent has not discussed the issue of the lack of evidence, but held that the report of the Enforcement Wing is unassailable. Such an approach, without evidence of purchase omission, le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
