Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order, which reversed the first appellate authority by holding the assessee's purchases to be from an unregistered dealer merely because the selling dealer did not disclose the sales in its return and without recording findings on all grounds, could be sustained.
Analysis: The revision arose under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The Tribunal had dealt only with one ground urged in the departmental appeal and had not returned any finding on the survey-related contention. It also concluded that the assessee's purchases were from an unregistered dealer solely on the basis of the selling dealer's omission in its return. As the final fact-finding authority, the Tribunal was required to record specific findings on the material issues before disturbing the order of the first appellate authority. The decision also noted the principle that bona fide purchases from a registered selling dealer cannot be disallowed merely because the seller failed to deposit or disclose tax, in the absence of collusion.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was held unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.