B. Amit Sthalekar, J. - (1.) THE revisionist is aggrieved by the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated 12.9.2013.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated that the facts of the case are that the revisionist is a registered dealer having a TIN No. 09552300340 and he is carrying on his business from Village Semara, Chinhat, Lucknow. During the year 2008 -09 the Firm made certain purchases of raw materiel namely, timber from registered dealers including one M/s. Heena Timbers, Bahraich having TIN No. 09555700834. For these purchases tax invoices, 9R's as well gate passes of the Mandi Samiti were also issued. M/s. Heena Timbers was also a registered dealer and its registration certificate continued upto 23.12.2009 but thereafter its registration was cancelled by the department. On 23.12.2009 a first information report was also lodged against M/s. Heena Timbers under sections 420, 424, 467, 468 and 120B I.P.C. By the Assistant Commissioner, Tax, Bahraich in Police Station Kesarganj District Bahraich. The grievance of the revisionist is that while making assessment for tax for the year 2008 -09, the claim of the Revisionist -Firm for credit of input tax was disallowed by the Assessing Authority and the Tax Invoice, 9R's and gate passes issued by M/s. Heena Timbers were not accepted and assessment of tax was thereafter made on the basis of best judgment assessment. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Authority dated 30.8.2011 the Revisionist -Firm preferred an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax, Lucknow which was also dismissed by order dated 23.1.2013. Aggrieved the revisionist -Firm preferred an appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow which has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 12.9.2013 on the ground that the Tax Invoices issued by M/s. Heena Timbers are forged and that the said Firm has not deposited the VAT collected by it.
(3.) HEARD Shri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Sanjeev Shankdhar, learned counsel for the respondent.;