9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the yield was 16.10% and 14.44% for the two periods respectively was also not supported by any logic or scientific materials. Although, counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner did place on record all the materials in his possession, it is evident that the Department was had not placed any materials on record in support of its contention. In the circumstances, requiring the ACST to undertake the exercise afresh after permitting the materials in support of either case to come on record appears to be the correct course of action for the Tribunal to have adopted - the Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the Tribunal in that regard. The impugned order of the Tribunal is not interfered with. It is cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit (ITC) illegally by showing the yield of bran oil to be very low and there also alleged discrepancy in the stocks. The percentage of rice bran oil as claimed by the Assessee was 16.10% for the period 1st April 2005 to 31st March, 2006 and 14.44 % for the period 1st April, 2006 till 30th November, 2006. However, in the assessment order dated 20th October, 2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST), it was noted that two other oil solvent units had yields of 20.85% and 22.10% respectively. Consequently, the average has taken 20% and applied to the Assessee and on that basis an additional demand was raised. 3. After the Assessee s appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax (Appeal) (DCST) the Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se to the assessing authority especially when there is no suppression of sale on the part of the dealer-assessee? 5. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.S. Padhy, learned ASC for the Department. 6. Mr. Ray submitted that the remand by the Tribunal of the matter to the ACST was unnecessary since all the materials were already available before the Tribunal. Relying on the decision in Siksha O Anusandhan v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2011) 336 ITR 112 (Ori) he contended that once all the materials were available on record the Tribunal should have disposed of the case on merits by taking such materials into consideration. 7. In the present case, the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
