9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata upon the matter being remanded for fresh consideration by the Tribunal by an order dated May 6, 2019 passed by this Court. According to the department, the Tribunal has merely gone on the basis of the observations of the High Court in the order of May 6, 2019 without appreciating that the High Court had left the entire matter for a de novo consideration to be undertaken by the Tribunal. 3. The order impugned runs into five pages and a line beyond. Most of the first page is taken up by the cause-title and, from the last two lines of the first page, through the second, third and most of the fourth page, observations made by the High in the order of May 6, 2019 have been quoted. The consideration of the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein had sold the goods to the respondent. These reasons are found in great detail in the 27 sub-paragraphs under paragraph 16 of the order of the Commissioner passed on March 29, 2017. If only to appreciate such reasons, it may be noticed that the Commissioner found as a matter of fact that the respondent herein claimed to have obtained the huge supplies on credit which, according to the Commissioner, was unusual since no previous transactions between the alleged suppliers and the respondent herein was indicated. In addition, the Commissioner found that the credit memos of suppliers Khuangluaia & Sons, Thahleikhuaia, Zothanmawii and J.H. Family Enterprise were fabricated and had been prepared after the goods were seized. The specific basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; possibly since the Tribunal may have agreed with the findings as they were based on cogent material. In the Tribunal's order of March 23, 2019, that runs into two pages and a half, the consideration of the matter is confined to some 20 lines on the final page. It is such perfunctory treatment of the matter that may have weighed with this Court in recording the observations as it did in the order dated May 6, 2019. 9. The observations of this Court contained in the order of May 6, 2019 have been substantially quoted in the order impugned dated December 23, 2019 and do not call for any repetition. However, such observations must necessarily be seen only to imply that those factual issues that were raised by the respondent herein agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conjecture and merely because the goods would have attracted a nominal duty cannot be a brush to sweep aside the cogent findings contained in the order-in-original of the Commissioner without referring to and dealing with the same in the light of the challenge thereto thrown by the respondent herein. Both the original order rendered by the Tribunal on March 23, 2018 and the present order of December 23, 2019 leave a lot to be desired. The Tribunal is tasked with the duty of assessing the grounds made out in support of an order. In this case the Tribunal appears to have abdicated its authority to decide and dealt with the matter at a superficial level without referring to either the grounds indicated in the order-in-original or the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
