9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the Department and Sri Subham Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. The present revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 7.7.2020 passed by the Tax Tribunal in respect of the respondents for the assessment year 2014-15 under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. It was alleged that respondent was carrying the business of purchase and sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recoverable from the dealer at Rs. 6,35,44,426/-. The whole exercise was done on the basis of the Tax Audit report. Aggrieved against the said order, the assessee, the respondent herein, filed a First Appeal No. ALL1/0138/2020. During the course of the hearing of the said appeal, the dealer produced evidences with regard to the transportation of goods and accepting the said evidence the Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o recorded that insofar as the revenue loss was concerned, the entire exercise was revenue neutral inasmuch the dealer had paid the tax, which is payable in respect of the purchase from unregistered dealers. Aggrieved against the said judgment dated 7.7.2020, the present revision has been filed. Sri B.K. Pandey, counsel for the Department has argued that in the Tax Audit report, it was revealed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st Appellate Authority and thus no fault could be found with the said procedure. Even otherwise as the Tribunal has recorded that entire exercise was revenue neutral and there is no ground to suggest that the said finding is any way perverse or erroneous, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
