TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 1306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts giving rise to this reference as reflected in the order of reference are: "..........that the dealer-applicant was assessed by the S.T.O., Bolangir-I Circle, Bolangir under section 12(4) of the Act raising extra tax demand of Rs. 83,023 against applicant mainly on the ground of excess stock of paddy of Q.285.70 kgs. less stock of rice of Q.137.50 kgs. non-accountal of 400 to 500 bags of mahua flower found from his godown, non-entry of Q.50.00 kgs. of paddy purchased in the books of account, non-accountal of sale of husk in regular course of business, non-accountal of transactions disclosed from slip of paper recovered from his business premises and non-production of relevant stock account for verification of stock in broken rice and b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate court have not been expressly reversed by the Tribunal, this cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned order more so, when no question of law is involved. 4.. Before proceeding further a reference may be made to rule 60 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 which lays down that if on the date fixed for hearing or any other date of which the hearing may be adjourned the appellant or applicant does not appear either in person or by his agent when the appeal or application for reference is called for hearing, the Tribunal may decide it on merits, after hearing the respondent or opponent or his agent, if present. In like manner, sub-rule (2) of rule 60 lays down that if on the date fixed for hearing or on any other date to which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "We have considered the basis on which the assessments were made. On June 25, 1987, sales tax authorities visited the place of business of the dealer and found discrepancies in paddy and rice stock. They also found on verification that the books of accounts did not indicate procurement of paddy as per vendor receipts. From the slip of paper, there is sufficient evidence to infer that the quantity of goods transported was by the dealer as evidenced from the 'mulia' charge paid. Learned ACST was wrong in accepting the contention, which has no justification as made by the learned STO. With regard to the out of account transaction of purchase of 'mahua flower' also, it is apparent that evidence built up bringing in a third party to whom the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned ACST unjustifiedly led himself into make believe by accepting whatever explanation that was put forth by the dealer". But what was the stand of the dealer or the explanation offered by him (the dealer), why it could not be accepted has not been mentioned. When two opposing parties present their respective case before an authority the case of one is to be accepted and that of the other rejected. It is for this reason that cogent reasons have to be assigned by the concerned authority as to why it has accepted, the stand of one party and not that of the other. Merely saying that it accepts the stand of one party and not that of the other, is not sufficient. The order in question sadly, does not reflect, the case of the dealer as made o....