9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire Judgement as to whether the goods were actually taken by the Respondent in its own trucks as stated by the Appellant because it is alleged by the Appellant that the Respondent lifted the goods from the Port to its Plant. Furthermore, various other evidence which may prove the transactions having been taken place between the Parties have not been discussed at all by the Learned Tribunal much less the fact that if no contest is made till the filing of the Petition, whether it can be raised for the first time in the Reply filed to the Application under Section 9 is also a question which requires to be answered. This is one such case in which interference is required for the purpose of looking into the entire evidence by the Tribunal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivery of 2000 MTs of coal at the rate of Rs. 5,700 PMT plus taxes and levies. The Purchase Order was accompanied by declaration under Section 206(c)(1A) of the Income Tax Act in Form 27C provided by the Respondent for supply of coal without collection of tax. It is further alleged that the Respondent issued another Purchase Order on the same date i.e., 27.12.2017 for supply of 2000 MTs of coal at the rate of Rs. 5,700 PMT for an amount of Rs.1,14,00,000/- plus taxes and levies. The revised Purchase Order was accepted by the Appellant with new rate. It is alleged that the other terms and conditions of the Pruchase Order were `basic price of Rs.5700/- (inclusive of duties, CVD, stevedoring and handling loaded into trucks) on stocks on sales, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to the Respondent was clearly appearing at the GSTN Portal of the Appellant, for which the Respondent must have availed the input tax credits of the GST charged by the Appellant. It is further alleged that as on 08.01.2018 (the date on which first supply or delivery of coal under aforesaid Purchase Order dated 27.12.2017 was made), the Respondent had Operational Debt of Rs.23,98,333.70/- towards the Appellant in respect of supplies made prior in time, therefore, the total outstanding of the Operational Debt after supplies came to be Rs.1,22,08,502.92/-. But the Respondent issued LC of Rs.25,00,000/- on 17.02.2018 which was discounted by the Appellant on 08.03.2018 and the proceeds were credited against the total outstanding debt which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been raised by the Respondent for the first time in the Reply filed to the Application and there was no Reply even to the Notice issued under Section 8. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in ignoring the other evidence on record, which includes various emails exchanged between the Parties and has not even made a reference about them in the Impugned Order and dismissed the Application solely on the ground that the delivery of the goods is not proved whereas the case of the Appellant is that the goods have been taken away by the Respondent by their own trucks, about which the detail has been given from 08.01.2018 to 10.02.2018 alongwith the weight of the coal which was loaded in the truck as it was the duty of the Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
