2014 (9) TMI 719

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal preferred by it, was rejected. The appeal also challenges the original order of dismissal of the Tribunal dated 24.12.2013. 2. The appellant, a registered dealer had sold compressors to one M/s. Chandraprabhu Commercial for Rs. 2,16,40,425/- for which it subsequently claimed benefit under Section 4(2)(a)(v) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The appellant secured 23 ST-35 Forms in compliance with the said Section 4(2)(a)(v) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 together with Rule 7(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 which were submitted for assessment. On 30.09.2000, the Assessing Officer denied the benefit of deduction, stating that ST-35 Forms had not been verified by Ward-71. The sales, however, were found to be genuine and the tran....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ments.............." 3. Pursuant to above, certain submissions appear to have been made before the Tribunal itself by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue on 20.08.2010, the relevant part of which reads as follows: ".....................Further the forms were verified from Ward No.71 which reported that no such firm registered in Ward No.71 but from the forms it seems that the dealer was earlier registered in Ward No.45 or 47 which issued the forms to the purchasing dealer. Therefore, with the assistance of Sales Tax no. it may be verified from both the Wards No.45 and 47 if such a dealer was registered in any of the wards and was issued the above stated ST- 35 forms. The VATO of Ward No.96 (KDU) may kindly be requested to contac....