Pre-assessment notice and bogus purchase findings sustain tax demand where no timely objection or proof of genuineness was shown.

A pre-assessment notice followed by concurrent findings of bogus purchases and unreliable declarations justified sustaining the tax demand. The assessee's complaint that non-supply of an intelligence report or a further objection opportunity vitiated the proceedings was rejected because the assessee had received the notice, did not object at the proper stage, and did not seek the material when it was available. The authorities also found that the purchases were not shown to be genuine, the declared sellers were not proved to be bona fide, and no satisfactory proof of payment or that the goods had already suffered tax was produced. On these facts, no legal infirmity was found in revision and the demand remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of a furnished intelligence report or further objection opportunity vitiated the assessment and appellate proceedings. (ii) Whether the assessee proved the genuineness of the purchases and the form 32 declarations relied upon to resist the tax demand.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of a furnished intelligence report or further objection opportunity vitiated the assessment and appellate proceedings.

Analysis: The assessee had been served with a pre-assessment proposition notice but did not file objections or seek the intelligence report at the earliest stage. The assessment records showed that the notice had been issued before completion of assessment, and the assessee had not availed the opportunity to controvert the allegations when it was available. On these facts, the grievance of denial of opportunity was not accepted.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the assessee was held not entitled to relief on the ground of alleged non-supply of the intelligence report.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee proved the genuineness of the purchases and the form 32 declarations relied upon to resist the tax demand.

Analysis: The authorities concurrently found that the purchases were claimed to have been made from dealers who were not shown to be genuine, that the form 32 declarations were inconsistent with the stand of the assessee, and that no satisfactory documentary proof of payment or bona fide transactions was produced. The findings recorded by the assessing authority, the first appellate authority, and the Tribunal showed that the alleged dealers were bogus and that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the goods had already suffered tax in the hands of the sellers.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases and the tax demand was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge did not disclose any legal infirmity in the concurrent findings, and the tax demand remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that receives a pre-assessment notice but does not object or seek available material at the proper stage cannot later complain of denial of opportunity, and concurrent factual findings that purchase transactions and supporting declarations are bogus will not be disturbed in revision absent legal error.

---