- (1.) These are two revisions against the order of the Tribunal dated September 16, 2010 by which the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the first appellate authority remanding back the matter to the assessing officer.
(2.) For the month of September, 2008, the applicant had filed return claiming set-off of the tax paid by the seller on the basis of the invoices issued by the selling dealer with the amount of tax payable by the applicant. On inquiry, the assessing officer found that the invoices issued by M/s. Jai Kaila Mai Bartan Bhandar, Gola Kaun, Postikhana, Jalesar, Etah, namely, invoice No. 155 dated September 25, 2008 for Rs. 12,00,282 and invoice No. 160 dated August 27, 2008 for Rs. 12,31,150 were not genuine invoices and accordingly the notice was issued to the applicant under section 8 as well as under section 54 of the U. P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as, "the VAT Act"). After giving opportunity to the applicant, the assessing authority has passed the order under section 8 of the VAT Act for the month of September, 2008 and has held that on inquiry it was found that M/s. Jai Kaila Mai Bartan Bhandar, Gola Kaun, Postikhana, Jalesar, Etah, has not filed the return from June, 2008 and their registration certificate has been suspended from the month of September, 2008. The assessing authority has raised the demand of Rs. 97,257 and also levied the penalty under section 54 of the VAT Act.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders passed by the assessing authority, the applicant filed two appeals before the Joint Commissioner (Appeal). The Joint Commissioner (Appeal) allowed both the appeals and remanded back the matter to the assessing authority. The appellate authority has remanded back the matter with a direction to the assessing authority that before arriving at any adverse conclusion against the assessee, the assessing officer had to investigate up to date position of the selling dealer and also to verify the fact that the cheques issued by the assessee were actually issued against the tax invoices given to the assessee or not. He has also observed that the assessee should have been given opportunity to cross-examine the selling dealer, as requested by him.;