9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunity of cross-examine not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is no doubt true that the appellant has an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the statutory appellate authority for which the appellant has to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has not been given an effective o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence to establish the movement of goods (purchase/sales). Appeal disposed off. - HON BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Appearance:- For the Appellant : Mr. Vinay Kumar Shraff Ms. Priya Sarah Paul Mr. Dev Kumar Agarwal. For the State : Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P. Mr. T. M. Siddiqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. S. Sanyal. JUDGMENT (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the appellant has not been given an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations, which have been made against the supplier and the transporter from whom statement/declaration has been obtained by the authority. 5. Admittedly, the appellant has not been furnished with copies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here are statutory documents and will be available in the portal of the department. 8. Thus, considering the fact that the appellant had no opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Shyam Sundar Tiwari or Mr. Ashoke Kumar Saha and the statement recorded from them were not furnished to the appellant, this is a fit case, where the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with law. 10. It is admitted by the appellant that there is a negative balance in the credit ledger. Therefore, as on date, the blocking of such ledger will not in any manner prejudice the appellant. However, it is made clear that in case funds flow into the ledger, the blocking of the ledger shall be restricted to a sum of Rs. 2,82,32,394/- only. 11. The appellant is bound to prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
