TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 715
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The short facts are that the petitioner was a dealer in groundnut. The assessment years relate to 1983-84 and 1984-85. There was exemption for groundnut purchases, which had suffered tax already in the relevant assessment years. According to the petitioner, he purchased groundnut from one Thiru S. Abdul Khader of Saleem Traders for the year 1983-84 and from Mohamed Meera Sha for the year 1984-85, who claimed to be the registered dealers and were doing business in groundnut in Dindigul. The petitioner, based on such purchases made from those dealers as well as based on the permits issued by the Marketing Committee of Dindi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the claim of the second sales cannot be accepted. The second respondent-Tribunal therefore, by its order dated December 1, 1999 allowed the revisions, set aside the order of the STAT and restored the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the assessing authority. Assailing the order of the second respondent-Tribunal, Mr. Sivanandam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the second respondent-Tribunal relied upon its own conclusion in an earlier order, wherein it took the view in regard to the very same dealer, viz., one Mr. Mohamed Meera Sha, whose registration certificate was cancelled retrospectively with effect from January 11, 1984 and that the reliance placed upon such an earlier orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....87. In paragraph 10, the STAT has recorded its conclusion as under: "10. . . . On the side of the Revenue, it is submitted that the enquiry conducted at the business premises has revealed that the seller has not done any business during the assessment year. Admittedly, the seller of the appellant is a registered dealer. It is not the case of the Revenue that the alleged seller, namely, Saleem Traders is a non-existent person. It is the plea of the Revenue that the seller has closed the business on January 1, 1983 and he has not done any business for the assessment year 1983-84. The allegation of the Revenue that the bills produced by the appellant for the purchases from Saleem Traders are bogus bills has not been proved by them. Admit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness on January 1, 1983 and thereafter, he left the place. In the revision notice also, apart from indicating this position, the deposition statement given by the owner of the oil mills was also enclosed. Therefore, it has been clearly indicated that the claim of exemption with reference to the alleged sale bill issued on October 31, 1983 by Thiru S. Abdul Khader was from a non-existing person. In such circumstances, even if the registration certificate was not cancelled, the fact remains that no business was done by Thiru S. Abdul Khader of Saleem Traders during the assessment year 1983-84. The Marketing Committee permit merely shows that the goods sold in the Marketing Committee to the petitioner was allowed to be taken from the place o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the assessing authority, was available with the assessing officer, which was relied upon to hold that the bills said to have been issued by him bearing the said address in the years 1983-84, cannot be accepted as valid bills, we have no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the second respondentTribunal. Similarly, in the case of the dealer Mohamed Meera Sha, here again, we find that the owner of the premises had given a categoric evidence before the assessing authority about the non-existence of the dealer in the relevant assessment years, who claimed to have carried on business in the premises of the said owner. In the case of Mohamed Meera Sha, it related to the assessment year 1984-85 and the statement of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by the second respondent-Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any flaw in the order of the second respondentTribunal in order to interfere with the same in these writ petitions. As far as the reliance placed upon the decision State of Tamil Nadu v. Sri Alaggar Traders reported in [2010] 28 VST 228 (Mad) is concerned, that was a case, where the facts were entirely different and had no comparison to the facts involved herein. The facts noted therein disclosed that the dealer had a valid registration in the relevant assessment year, viz., 1995-96 and such registration was existing from 1994-95 onwards and got it renewed till 1996-97. The further fact noted therein was that the assessing authority did not take any steps to trace out the....