LAWS(RAJ)-2017-2-289

C T O ANTI EVASION, CIRCLE-ALWAR Vs. LALIT HANS PROTEIN PVT LTD THROUGH ITS CHIEF ACCOUNTANT & AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

Decided On February 20, 2017
C T O Anti Evasion, Circle-Alwar Appellant
V/S
Lalit Hans Protein Pvt Ltd Through Its Chief Accountant And Authorized Signatory Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against order dt 29.5.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts noticed are that a survey was conducted at the business premises of the respondent assessee on 24.6.2008. The respondent assessee is carrying on manufacturing / producing oil Sarson with khal of Sarson. During the course of survey, a book marked as Deewan Chand was seized and taken into possession by the officers. An explanation was sought, but it appears that none appeared on behalf of the assessee on some dates. Thereafter the contents of the book were got audited and it was noticed that there were substantial transaction with one M/s Jayshree Enterprises of Delhi, and it was also recorded about builty numbers, book number, truck number, bills of goods and many columns were lying blank and it was noticed that declaration form ST-47 was not available nor there was serial number in the bills/builties and taking into consideration the aforesaid and other discrepancies noticed, an assessment came to be passed by the Assessing Officer holding that the assessee purchased goods to the extent of Rs.1,41,14,842/-, which appeared to be bogus and consequently charged tax @ 4% and simultaneously also directed to charge interest and penalty.

(3.) The matter was assailed before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), who raised a legal issue that the assessment passed by the AO, is barred by limitation u/s 25(3) of the RVAT Act, and since the survey was conducted on 24.6.2008 and assessment having been framed on 8.6.2009, was not proper as it had to be made within a period of six months and in the particular case the Commissioner did not grant further time and taking this into consideration, the DC(A) was satisfied and accordingly quashed the very assessment.