RAM LAL GUPTA AND CO. Vs. DY. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 16 -11 -2009 passed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (Appellate Authority) Jammu whereby the said Appellate Authority has upheld the order passed by the Assessing Authority under section 7(15) of the J & K GST Act, 1962. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a registered dealer with Commercial Tax Department Circle -D, Jammu. The appellant was assessed for the assessment year under consideration and the returned filed by the appellant was accepted. Later the Assessing Authority reopened the assessment under section 7(11) of the Act, on the alleged ground that the appellant has effected purchases from outside the state but not shown in the books of accounts. On the basis of said bills an assessment order was passed against the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority set aside the case to the Assessing Authority on the ground that there has been violation of principles of natural justice as the bills in question have not been shown to the appellant.

(2.) WHEN the Assessing Authority re -started the proceedings, he issued notice to the appellant that the appellant has effected purchase against 7 bills, which have not been recorded in the books of accounts. The appellant has filed the detailed reply denied 6 bills out of the seven and filed affidavit to this effect before Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority again issued notice to appellant and appellant again vide affidavit dated 28 -03 -2009 denied the purchase effected from M/s. Gurdev Hardware Store, Jalandhar, M/s. Raj Kumar Amar Pal, Delhi and M/s. Sumit Sales Crop; Jalandhar and in the affidavit clearly stated that the appellant has not transacted any business with said firms in previous years or in the year 1995 -96.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Assessing Authority filed appeal before Appellate Authority challenging the imposition of tax, interest and penalty who has rejected the appeal by holding that mere denial by the appellant is not sufficient. It is rather evidence against the appellant which the appellant has failed to rebut and in absence of any concrete evidence supporting denial of bills the Assessing Authority has rightly proceeded against the appellant.