TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Advocate for the respondent-State. In this application under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the suo motu order of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia Zone, Tinsukia, under section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 vide order dated October 30, 1995. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act and he filed his return f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner is that the original assessments are not prejudicial to the interest of revenue of the State since there is no evasion of taxes and the revisional authority passed the impugned order without considering the documents produced by the petitioner. In a recent case of Santalal Mehendi Ratta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Taxes reported in [2006] 143 STC 511; [2002] 1 GLR 197, this court held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purchased the above tea on submission of "D" forms. The entire dispute arose because of the fact that in the broker's certificate the name of the petitioner was not recorded and it was issued in the name of Padmadhar Tea Co., from whom the petitioner purchased the tea. It is submitted that the above tea was sold in tea auction center by the petitioner and the matter was brought to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e consignment. The petitioner has also obtained fresh certificate from the Tea Brokers (P) Ltd., issued in their name. On perusal of the records, we find that the revisional authority acted on mere suspicion without making any enquiry into the matter and came to a finding resulting in alleged evasion of taxes by the petitioner which was considered prejudicial to the interest of the State. The suo....