1999 (10) TMI 715

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioners. The petitioners challenged the action of the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal. The respondent No. 1 contended that the application of the petitioners had been rejected because the requirement was not bona fide or reasonable. 2.. By an order dated September 20, 1999, the Tribunal directed the respondent No. 1 to reconsider the matter after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The respondent No. 1 was directed to pass a reasoned order. The petitioners duly appeared before the respondent again. The respondent No. 1 passed an order recalling his earlier order rejecting the petitioner application but stating in the order that the petitioners' had not paid the tax on the sugar which was previously imported ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....priate assessing authority is not satisfied with the correctness of the particulars furnished in the application or statement of account of way-bill in form 42A or form 48A issued to him on the last two occasions, it may, pending enquiry or investigation into the matter by it or by such other authority as the Commissioner may authorise or direct, issue such number of way-bill forms to the registered dealer as may, in its opinion satisfy the immediate requirement of such dealer." 5.. It is clear from the aforesaid sub-rule that the grounds upon which the way-bills may be refused are (i) incorrectness; (ii) incompleteness and (iii) requirement is unreasonable. If these three grounds are not there, the respondent No. 1 is bound to issue ....