1990 (12) TMI 309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2 dated 16th December, 1981, which were carried by Northern Roadways, Delhi, through R.R. No. 9858 dated 16th December, 1981. On detailed survey of the stock and examination of account books it was found that goods never came to his shop on that date. As per the statement of the proprietor of the assessee-firm, Shri Surendra Singh, goods in question were never imported by him. He also stated that someoneelse must have used the petitioner's name for importing goods, and he or assessee-firm had not taken delivery of the said goods. The respondent issued notice under section 22(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the enquiry of the alleged goods. The petitioner complied with the said notice. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....levied on mere presumption, and directed that the assessing authority may however further enquire into the matter from the driver of the vehicle concerned. Accordingly the tax levied on Sales of Rs. 45,000 and penalty of Rs. 9,000 under section 16(1)(e) was set aside. The penalty under section 22(6)(b) and interest under section 11-B were also reduced. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the assessing authority for re-examination. The respondent again passed assessment order on 6th July, 1985, after remand and accordingly tax as well as penalty of Rs. 4,500 and Rs. 9,000, respectively, were levied. Aggrieved by this order the assessee preferred appeal before the appellate authority who vide order dated 23rd April, 1986 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in the natural course by municipality for the payment of octroi is an authenticity but as the goods were not admittedly found at the time of verification and transporter had shown his inability to verify that the goods delivered at the place of destination, i.e., the shop of the petitioner but he has stated that delivery of the goods at the place of destination can only be known from the concerned driver. In view of the above situation mere depositing of octroi would not be conclusive evidence to prove the import of the goods, therefore, the evidence of driver is relevant to resolve the controversy as to whom actual delivery was given against R.R. in dispute. Thus, the driver's evidence was necessary to coming to the conclusion and the ap....