2010 (7) TMI 942

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he order dated January 17, 2000, the Additional Commissioner has appointed the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) as the assessing authority of the petitioner. The said order has been challenged in the Writ Petition No. 629 of 2000. The contention of the petitioner was that it was the transporter and was not the dealer and therefore the order under rule 6(5) and 6(7) of the Rules should not be passed. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated August 1, 2000 directing the petitioner to submit the objection before the respondent and the respondent has been directed to decide the said objection. It appears that the petitioner has filed objection. The said objection has been decided by the order dated September 30, 2000 and a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e security in respect of some of the transactions had been deposited by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be a dealer. He again submitted that merely because the petitioner was not able to disclose the name and address of the consignor and consignee, the petitioner cannot be treated as the dealer. The learned standing counsel submitted that at the time of survey dated September 9, 1999 and September 10, 1999 made at the premises of the petitioner, various incriminating documents were found. He further submitted that goods were also found and in support of which, no document was available. According to the learned standing counsel, despite opportunity being given to the petitioner, the details of the consignor and consig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... impugned order reveals that surveys were made at the premises of the petitioner on September 9, 1999 and September 10, 1999. At the time of surveys at the godown of the petitioner, the goods were found and no document relating to such goods were made available. The petitioner was not able to disclose the name of the consignor and consignee. It was also found that in respect of some of the consignments, the petitioner has deposited security on his account. Therefore we are of the view that there was sufficient material to infer that apart from transportation business, the petitioner was also involved in carrying on business of buying and selling on own account. So far as the exercise of the power under rule 6(5) and rule 6(7) is conce....