TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 1344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the year 1980-81 disclosing its total turnover as well as exempted turnover. Basing on those returns the Commercial Tax Officer framed the assessment granting exemption in respect of the second sales of dal. The Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his revisional powers under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), issued show cause notice dated April 8, 1986. The said show cause notice was as a result of the action of the department in cancelling the registration certificate of M/s. Sanjay Traders, Agapura, with effect from April 1, 1980, pursuant to which disallowance of similar exemptions claimed by other dealers was confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder various bills, which are sought to be produced before the Tribunal. According to the Tribunal, though opportunity was given before the revisional authority, the assessee did not produce any evidence, therefore, the evidence, which was sought to be produced, has no merit and accordingly the claim of the petitioner was rejected, even though it was sought for a remand to consider the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal as well as to give further opportunity to produce the necessary evidence to prove the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has come up in the present revision. 3.. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal was not justified in consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision of this Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. [1986] 62 STC 71. It is contended that even if the vendor of the petitioner did not pay the tax, in so far as the present petitioner is concerned no liability can be fastened with reference to the second sales effected by the petitioner. The learned counsel also contended that certain enquiries were conducted with reference to the vendor of the petitioner in respect of which the petitioner has no knowledge and ultimately on the premise that the registration certificate of M/s. Sanjay Traders was cancelled with retrospective effect, the exemption granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Before withdrawing the exemption, the petitioner must be given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sales for the purpose of evading tax. As the department stated that the said M/s. Sanjay Traders was a fictitious dealer, the registration granted in its favour was cancelled. The said cancellation was even confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, there is no case in favour of the petitioner/dealer to accept its claim for remand. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner failed to produce any acceptable evidence to prove that it had in fact made purchases from M/s. Sanjay Traders. In the absence of any such evidence the rejection of the additional evidence and the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal is proper and just. 5.. Heard both sides and considered the material on record. 6.. The dispute is whether the dismissa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m M/s. Sanjay Traders and also xerox copies of some documents, such as original receipts under which M/s. Sanjay Traders said to have received some goods purchased by them. The petitioner also filed xerox copies of the claims said to have been preferred by M/s. Sanjay Traders before the railway authorities seeking compensation in respect of some such goods and also xerox copies of railway receipts under which the firm paid for lifting the goods purchased by it. When such material was filed, the Tribunal ought to have received the same and ought to have considered on merits. Without receiving the said additional material, the Tribunal superficially looked into that material and felt that no useful purpose would be served by producing such ma....