9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o grant opportunity to the petitioner for adducing further evidence or not - HELD THAT:- On the facts of the instant case, when it is found that the petitioner dealer had clearly contravened the terms of the Central Government Scheme that proposed benefits to purchasers of coir looms subject to their complying with a particular procedure for securing the said benefits, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that, who was a person entrusted with the task of supplying the looms that the supply of parts of the loom (in lieu of a complete loom) for a lesser consideration should be considered as legal and proper and that his tax liability would therefore be only in respect of the reduced consideration received for the parts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Coir Board for inclusion in a list of certified suppliers of coir looms under a Central Government Scheme. Pursuant to his inclusion in the said list, he received orders for the supply of coir looms from various individuals who were the beneficiaries of the Scheme announced by the Central Government through the Coir Board. It would appear that based on the provisions of the Scheme, and on request for loans for the purchase of the coir looms, banks would sanction loans to needy beneficiaries and on being satisfied with the entitlement of their customer for the benefit of the Scheme, they would sanction the loan by paying the loan amount directly into the account of the petitioner. The banks would also insist on a hypothecation of the coir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty to the actual differential tax amount demanded, namely, Rs. 4,61,625/-. In a further revision filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Commercial taxes, the Commissioner found that this was a clear case of under billing and evasion of tax and, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had paid tax on a reduced amount claiming to be the amount received for the goods actually supplied to the customer, the findings of the First Revision Authority did not warrant any intervention. 4. It is aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the petitioner is before us through this Revision Petition wherein the following questions of law are raised: 1. Whether the return of the balance amount k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cing further evidence? 5. We have heard Sri. Devananda Narasimham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. V.M. Shamsudheen, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. Although it is the strenuous contention of Sri. Devananda Narasimham that in the case of other dealers similarly situated as the petitioner, the First Revision Authority had dropped the proceedings for penalty by setting aside the orders of the Intelligence Officer, we are not in a position to ascertain the reasoning that prompted the First Revision Authority to adopt such a course of action in the case of others who are stated to be similarly placed as the petitioner. On the facts of the instant case, when we find that the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
