https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164342 A dealer who was repeatedly given opportunity after remand but still failed to appear or produce supporting records could not complain of denial of hearing; the refusal to adjourn and ex parte disposal were therefore justified. On the merits, cancellation of the eligibility certificate was sustained because departmental inquiry findings showed alleged purchases were bogus, the supposed sellers did not exist, and the claimed sales were unverifiable. As the dealer produced no account books or rebuttal evidence, the burden to prove entitlement to the benefit remained undischarged, and the cancellation was upheld. en-us Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2014 18:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164342 A dealer who was repeatedly given opportunity after remand but still failed to appear or produce supporting records could not complain of denial of hearing; the refusal to adjourn and ex parte disposal were therefore justified. On the merits, cancellation of the eligibility certificate was sustained because departmental inquiry findings showed alleged purchases were bogus, the supposed sellers did not exist, and the claimed sales were unverifiable. As the dealer produced no account books or rebuttal evidence, the burden to prove entitlement to the benefit remained undischarged, and the cancellation was upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164342