TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench) (for short, the Tribunal) Chennai in TA.No.34 of 2014. 2. The tax case revision was admitted on 15.04.2019 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeal completely in the light of the documents including the original form XXAs produced at the time of hearing of the appeal containing the seal of the check post officer, as proof for movement of goods from Chennai to Bangalore? (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in totally ignoring the set of documents filed at the time of hearing that included the original form XX as issued by the clearing and forwarding agent containing the seal of the check post officer?" 3. However, today, we reframe the subst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the respondent to release the goods. Pursuant to the order, the goods were released on 30.12.2003. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.01.2004, the goods were taken to Bangalore accompanied by Form XXA, lorry receipts and other documents. The respondent issued notice dated 05.07.2006 stating that on verification of the movement register at the border check post, namely Tamil Nadu-Ranipet Check Post at Serkadu, Hosur Check Post and Thiruthani Check Post for the period from 30.12.2003, it was seen that the goods have not moved from Chennai to Bangalore. This was the allegation made in the notice dated 05.07.2006. The petitioner submitted their objection dated 02.08.2006 reiterating that the goods have moved and the check post ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the copies of the documents produced by the petitioner do not contain the seal of the check post. Before us, the copy of Form XXA, one of the duplicate of which is retained by the petitioner, has been produced and a colour photostat copy of the same reveals that there is a round seal indicating it to be a seal of the check post. The date and time of the check post, where the seal was affixed, is not clear from the photostat copy. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, at the first instance, by their reply dated 02.08.2006, had relied upon Form XXA to state that the goods moved from Chennai to Bangalore. However, the Assessing Officer appears to have not done any verification, after receiving the petitioner's reply dated 02.08.....