| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 23 2019 SLD 23 2019 PTD 130 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
S.T.A. No. 214/KB of 2015, decision Dated: 27-01-2018
MRS. AMBREEN ASLAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER SYED TAHIR RAZA ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
S.T.A. No. 214/KB of 2015, decision Dated: 27-01-2018
MRS. AMBREEN ASLAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER SYED TAHIR RAZA ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, R.T.O., HYDERABAD
VS
M/S. FATEH MOTORS LIMITED, HYDERABAD
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 11(2),13,21,33,34,45,46
Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)- -Ss. 11(2), 21, 33, 34, 45, 13 & 46-Adjustment of allegedly inadmissible sales tax-Purchase from blacklisted/suspended supplier- Taxpayer had declared purchases from the registered person for an aggregate amount of Rs.34,445,279 involving allegedly inadmissible adjustment of input sales tax of Rs.5,511,244-Taxpayer was served with show-cause notice-Adjudicating Officer/Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, not being satisfied with the contentions of the taxpayer, passed order-in-original for recovery of Rs.5,511,244 under S. 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and also imposed penalty under S.33 and charged default surcharge under S.34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990- Appellate authority /Commissioner Inland Revenue (A), vacated order of the Adjudication Authority-Validity-Allegation of the department against the taxpayer was that he was involved in purchases from black listed/suspended supplier-Record had revealed that said supplier was blacklisted/suspended after the date of the transactions-Supplier, at the time of business transaction with the taxpayer, in circumstances was not black listed/suspended and Adjudicating Officer had not verified the same-Contention of the taxpayer was that he had made all transactions with its supplier through Banking Channel-Adjudicating Officer, in circumstances, was required to verify the said transactions through Banking Channel or entry register but that had not been done-Impugned of appellate authority did not require interference and same was upheld by the Tribunal. 2011 PTD (Trib.) 2619 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MRS. AMBREEN ASLAM, (JUDICIAL MEMBER):---.--- This order will dispose of titled appeal filed by the department against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No.90 dated 28-01-2015 passed by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Hyderabad on the following grounds; 1) Order passed by learned Commissioner IR (Appeals), Hyderabad is bad in law and against facts of the case. 2) That findings recorded by learned Commissioner-IR (Appeals) are perverse, capricious and reflect misreading of law and facts. 3) That the learned Commissioner IR (Appeals) fell in error by not discussing all of the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492