Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2018 (2) TMI 1166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the respondent to furnish certain details to enable the petitioner to submit objections to the allegation made against the petitioner that during the relevant assessment year 2008-2009, they had effected import of timber and cleared the same without payment of tax. The writ petition in W.P.No.15986 of 2013 was disposed of by an order dated 27.06.2013 by directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.04.2013, wherein the petitioner had requested copies of several documents. On receipt of the directions, the respondent enclosed the information received by them from the Deputy Accountant General/S.R.A dated 19.04.2012, which contains an annexure. The annexure shows that the import transactions done by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssued any positive direction but directed the representation to be disposed of on merits. Pursuant thereto, the respondent has given the details along with notice dated 08.08.2013. On perusal of the said letter along with the enclosures, it is seen that the petitioner has been a regular importer of timber from abroad. Therefore, the petitioner would state that they have not done any transaction during 2008-2009 and the onus lies on the petitioner to prove the same and the respondent cannot be directed to prove the negative. Inspite of the petitioner having not submitted their objections in time, the respondent granted further time and waited for nearly seven months and inspite of the same, the petitioner did not bother to respond to the not....