9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are essentially question of facts and the same do not give rise to any question of law warranting interference at the hands of this court - reliance placed in the case of METROARK LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA [ 2004 (1) TMI 397 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Unless it is shown that there is something perverse in its finding, this Court would not interfere. No authority is required for this purpose. That apart, it is settled law that a court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right, but only when it is shown to be wrong . The writ petition deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merit - Petition dismissed. - W.P. No.1331 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the same, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, which set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter to the first respondent / assessing authority for fresh consideration. After remand, the first respondent confirmed the earlier assessment order, which was challenged by the petitioner before the first Appellate Authority. The first appellate authority set aside the order of the assessment, against which, the third respondent preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the fourth respondent/ Tribunal. Therefore, this writ petition by the petitioner / assessee. 3.The challenge made herein is to the order of the Tribunal in S.T.A No.618 of 2002 dated 03.02.2007 in the second round of litigatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner retained the title and ownership in respect of the raw hides and skins at all relevant point of time. In other words, the alleged sale of raw skins to the 7 registered dealers, was not genuine, but only a modus operandi adopted by the petitioner for the purpose of evading tax by claiming that they are not the last purchaser within the state. 4.2 As regards the turnover of ₹ 3,58,440/- being the actual suppression with reference to the stock difference in raw skin noticed at the time of inspection, it was submitted by the petitioner that they had reported excess stock to the Bank for availing credit facilities. The Tribunal was of the view that such explanation offered by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the Authorities below, we are of the opinion that the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal, may have to fail for the following reasons: (i)Whether the transaction between the petitioner and the 7 registered dealers in respect of the alleged sale of raw skins, was a fictitious/not genuine, is essentially a question of fact. (ii)Whether there was any transfer of property, which is a sine qua non for a sale from the petitioner to the 7 registered dealers, is also essentially a question of fact. (iii)The inference drawn by the Tribunal that the claim of sale by the petitioner to the 7 registered dealers, was not genuine in view of the fact that there was no payment received by the petitioner; that they had paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
