Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing VATAP Nos. 134 and 148 of 2012 as it was not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the issues involved therein are identical. For brevity, the facts are being taken from VATAP No. 134 of 2012.
(2.) VATAP No. 134 of 2012 has been filed by the assessee under Sec. 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 11.4.2012 (Annexure A -11) passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Haryana Punjab (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 28.1.2014 for determination of the following substantial questions of law: - 1. Whether the goods in question purchased from NAFED, a Govt. of India undertaking would have remained unaccounted and there could have been an attempt to evade the tax on the part of the appellant where the payments are made in advance through bank channels? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of Ld. AETO on the basis on the statement of driver in the light of judgment of Krish Pack 28 PHT 27 of this Court?
(3.) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in holding that the documents produced by the appellant were manipulated even though no enquiry had been conducted by AETO about the genuineness of the documents as held by the Tribunal? 3. VATAP No. 148 of 2012 has been admitted for determination of questions No. 1 to 3 as reproduced above and also for questions No. 4 and 5 which are as under: -;