TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hands of the consignor? (2) Whether the petitioner could be bound to produce the books of accounts of the THIRD PARTY? (3) Whether the petitioner have a right to know about the progress of the enquiry conducted by the authorities regarding the transactions' genuineness?" The brief facts emerging on the face of the record of the case are that on November 23, 1991 a tanker bearing No. DL-IG.6906 was checked by the officer of the Flying Squad, Jaipur, which was containing oil. On enquiry, by the officer from the driver of the vehicle, the driver stated that the oil was filled in the tanker from one factory situated in Matsya Industrial Area, Alwar, while the bill of purchase belongs to M/s. Mangal Chand Lachhiram, with address of Kedal Ganj Alwar, who is a trader. The purchase bill showed weight of the goods as 9 tonnes, i.e., 9000 kgs. while the weighment parchi issued by "Jain Dharamkata" showed the weight of the goods as 10,960kgs., which created doubt in the mind of the officer of the Department. Therefore, the oil was seized. After seizure of the goods, on further checking again the driver confirmed his earlier statement and stated that the oil was filled in the tan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made, knowingly and that it is a clear-cut case of evasion of tax. It has further been stated that when confronted with the aforesaid fact that the partner of the petitioner-firm has denied purchase of goods from M/s. Agarwal Oil and General Mills, MIA, Alwar and that it was purchased from Yogendra Trading Co., the driver of the tanker on the second occasion again stated that he is not aware of the fact but he was very categorical and stated that the oil was filled in the tanker from M/s. Agarwal Oil and General Mills, MIA Alwar. Accordingly, the respondent-Department held that the bills found in the possession of the driver were bogus and fictitious and accordingly imposed penalty under section 22A(7) amounting to Rs. 1,10,135. This order of imposition of penalty was challenged before the learned DC (A) by the petitioner where also same facts were reiterated that the version of the driver cannot be believed when all other facts are very clear. It was further stated that the imposition of penalty is made on the basis of conjunctures and surmises and the penalty deserves to be deleted. However, the DC(A) also agreed with the findings arrived at by the CTO (FS), the officer of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was carrying forged, false and fictitious bills and on interrogation of the driver of the vehicle, by the officer he carried it to the premises of the factory of M/s. Agarwal Oil and General Mills, MIA, Alwar, from whom the oil in the tanker was filled in. She further submitted that despite repeated opportuni ties granted to the petitioner to produce by acceptable or other evidence as to goods having been purchased from Yogendra Trading Company the same was not done, neither confirmation was filed nor any affidavit or any other document was produced except the mere bill of Yogendra Trading Company and on the contrary, a certificate of M/s. Agarwal Oil and General Mills, MIA, Alwar was produced about non-selling of the goods to the petitioner which had no relevance at all. She submitted that the certificate/ affidavit ought to have come from Yogendra Trading Co. of the sale of goods to the petitioner in support of the alleged sale. She further submitted that the Department was well within its right to ask the petitioner to produce the books of accounts of Yogendra Trading Company when the sale was doubtful. She further submitted that fair and full investigation was made by the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by someone. It is also apparent from the perusal of the findings that the purchase bills were issued by Yogendra Trading Company and the petitioner-firm was asked to lead further evidence, if any, of the goods having been purchased from Yogendra Trading Company despite repeated opportunities neither any evidence in the shape of confirmatory letter was placed before the respondent-Department nor any affidavit was filed from M/s. Yogendra Trading Company to confirm the sale of goods. It is true, that the respondent-assessee petitioner may not be required to produce the record of the third party but certainly something more was to be proved by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. If Yogendra Trading Company did sell the goods and had issued proper bills, there was no difficulty in substantiating its claim by submitting confirmation/affidavit that the goods have been sold to the petitioner by them and that such goods are duly recorded in their books of account. It is also apparent from the perusal of the findings arrived at by the authorities on record that though Yogendra Trading Company does exist on record but whereabouts were not known and such premise....