Ashwani Kumar Mishra - (1.) - Revisionist is the transporter, who is aggrieved by an order of the tribunal dated 4.10.2007, whereby the second appeal has been rejected and the orders of assessment, as affirmed in first appeal are maintained.
(2.) Facts emerging on record are that in the course of interstate sale the vehicle in question had entered State of U.P. on 26.3.2002 and had not crossed the border of State. It was, therefore, presumed that the goods have been sold within the State of U.P. The proceedings initiated was contested by the transporter on the ground that the vehicle alongwith goods have been stolen from within the State of U.P. and a first information report had been lodged on 16.4.2002. A final report has also been submitted pursuant to such first information report. The tribunal has returned a finding that the details of truck driver as well as owner of the truck have not been verified and their addresses disclosed are forged. The first information report has been got lodged by an employee of the transporter and a finding has been returned that the owner of the goods was in collusion and after having sold it within the State of U.P. is trying to evade payment of tax.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the first information report as well as the final report submitted in the matter in order to contend that the vehicle as well as goods have not been recovered so far.;