TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal No. 510 of 2001 for Assessment Year 1996-97 (U.P.). Present revision has been pressed on the following questions of law:- 1. Whether in view of judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dhan Prakash Cane Crusher Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax (2002 UPTC 634) the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the requisite forms submitted by the applicant? 2. Whether admittedly the goods have been returned within six months by the purchaser of the applicant which is duly supported by debit note, invoices, gate pass of the purchaser and the applicant has made correspondence entries in its books of account and has produced the same while filing the return in the subsequent months. The said documents are on record of the Tribunal, sti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f forms III-B by the purchasing dealer. Section 12B of the Act clearly contemplates three situations in which additional evidence may be entertained. (i) It may be entertained to admit evidence that was wrongly refused to be admitted by the Assessing Authority. (ii) Additional evidence may be admitted on record which was not within the knowledge of a party in face of due diligence exercised by such party. (iii) Additional evidence may be admitted if such evidence could not be produced by a party despite due diligence on its part. In the present case, though the assessee-revisionist claims to have always had knowledge of its entitlement to concessional rate of tax upon furnishing forms III-B, at the same time it has been submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of any dispute as to the explanation furnished by the assessee-revisionist of it having pursued the matter with the purchasing dealers and of such dealer having issued the two number of forms III-B with delay, the first question of law (noted above) is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee-revisionist and against the revenue. As to the second question, the deduction being claimed by the assessee-revisionist is governed by the language of Section 2(i) of the Act, Explanation-II Clause (ii) read with Rule 44A(b) of the Rules. Thus a deduction was allowable to the assessee-revisionist against the goods returned within a period of six months. Referring to the debit note which is undisputed as also the excise gate passes which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....achined the castings. Merely because the word 'unmachined' or such other description was not found mentioned on certain bills whereas such mention was found on certain bills it may at the most have invited a suspicion on the part of the Assessing Authority. Such suspension may have driven the Assessing Authority to make a full fledged enquiry from the purchasing dealers of the assessee or he could have also made a survey of the assessee-revisionist's manufacturing facilities to determine if any machined castings were prepared and sold by the assessee-revisionist. In absence of such enquiry being made by the Assessing Authority either from the purchasing dealers of the assessee or by carrying out a survey of the revisionist's....