Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.C. Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
(2.) On 19 May 2003, the Tribunal while dealing with the appeal of the assessee relating to the Assessment Year 1995-96 remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority noticing that no opportunity to cross examine one Ghanshyam Pandey was afforded. It also took into consideration the fact that the statement of Ghanshyam Pandey alone had formed the bedrock for the additions in taxable turnover. It further noted that the assessee from the very beginning disputed the statement of Ghanshyam and therefore the imperative necessity that the revisionist be granted an opportunity to cross examine.
(3.) The issue itself arose out of the fact that the Department is stated to have obtained the statement of Ghanshyam Pandey in which he alleged that no transport of goods was effected to Daman at the behest of the assessee. Upon subsequently being confronted with the transport bill, he is purported to have stated that the said bill was generated only on the instructions of the assessee. On this material alone, the respondents took the view that the entire transaction was a ruse in order to evade payment of tax.;