ORDER : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated July 15, 2015 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, operative portion of which reads as under: "This revisional application is partly allowed. Additional tax liability raised by the learned revisional authority to the tune of Rs. 3,05,230 is hereby confirmed. However, for the reasons stated above in the body of this order, the penalty of Rs. 4,57,845 levied under section 34(7) as well as additional interest charged under section 42(6) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 3,38,803 as against Rs. 4,772 charged by the assessing officer are hereby deleted." The Central issue in this litigation consists, disallowance of input-tax credit to the petitioner on purchases made from one M/s. Om Incorporation whose registration certificate was cancelled with retrospective effect from January 1, 2007. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the same day that the Tribunal has decided several revision petitions on the same ground or on the same line. One such dealer had approach this court by filing Special Civil Application No. 90 of 2016, which came to be allowed by the Division Bench by judgment dated May 5, 2016 (Mahadev Enterprise v. State of Gujarat, [2016] 92 VST 360 (Guj)), in which following observations were made (pages 378 & 379 in 92 VST): "15. As discussed hereinabove, input-tax credit cannot be denied to a party in the absence of the Department having established that the transactions in question are not genuine or that they are bogus, etc. In the facts of the present case as emerging from the record, no such material has been brought on record by the respondent. In the facts of the present case, the revisional authority had initiated the revision proceedings by calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the input-tax credit on the purchases made by it from M/s. Om Incorporation for the period after January 1, 2007 should not be disallowed. The petitioner, at no point of time, was called upon to establish the genuineness of such transactions or to produce any documentary evidence in support of such transactions. The petitioner, at no point of time, was called upon to establish the genuineness of such transactions or to produce any documentary evidence in support of such transactions. The revisional authority, without calling upon the petitioner to produce any such documents, had recorded a finding that the petitioner had not produced any documents in the nature of sale bills, L.R., weigh bridge chits, entry gate pass, etc., to establish transfer of goods to it from M/s. Om Incorporation. The Tribunal has gone a step further and has placed reliance upon material produced by the respondent directly before it, that too, regarding M/s. Om Incorporation, and has recorded a finding that the transactions are not genuine and that the petitioner has acted in collusion with M/s. Om Incorporation for evasion of tax. In the opinion of this court, there was no justification for the Tribunal to record such findings of fact which were not based upon material forming part of the record of the order of the sub-ordinate authority, but upon material produced by the respondent directly before the Tribunal. 16. Another aspect of the matter is that before the Tribunal, all aspects with regard to the scope of the revisional proceedings, etc., had been canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner. It was categorically stated by the petitioner that there was no dispute at all with regard to genuineness of purchase transactions and the petitioner had also produced documents in support thereof. However, such documents have been brushed aside by the Tribunal on the ground that they are not genuine and were subsequently created. 17. In the facts of the present case, when the authorities below have not called upon the petitioner to establish the genuineness of the transactions, in the opinion of this court, the Tribunal was not justified in brushing aside the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner by stating that the same had been subsequently created. Moreover, the Tribunal has noted that without disputing the legal propositions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, it emerges that the transactions are not genuine and that the petitioner has acted in collusion with the said party for evasion of tax. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal was on the question of invocation of jurisdiction under section 75 of the Act, which went to the root of the matter. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal was on the question of invocation of jurisdiction under section 75 of the Act, which went to the root of the matter. The Tribunal, however, without disputing the legal propositions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner and recording any finding on the question of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the revisional authority, has confirmed the order passed by the revisional authority to the extent of the additional tax liability. When legal propositions are canvassed on behalf of a party before the Tribunal, more so, a proposition regarding lack of jurisdiction on the part of the concerned authority, which goes to the root of the matter, the Tribunal is duty-bound to deal with the same and record a finding in respect thereof. 18. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the very initiation of the revisional proceedings was itself without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the same was based upon material extraneous to the record of order of the officer appointed under section 16 of the Act to assist the Commissioner. Moreover, even on merits, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated July 15, 2015 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. 67 of 2013 to the extent the same confirms the additional tax liability raised by the revisional authority and the interest thereon, is hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to input-tax credit on tax paid on purchases made by it from M/s. Om Incorporation and is not liable to pay any tax or interest as per the revision order passed against it under the GVAT Act for the year 2006-07. Rule is made absolute accordingly." 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader, Shri Tirthraj Pandya, was unable to point out any point of justification between the facts of two cases. In the result, this petition is also disposed of setting aside the Tribunal's impugned order dated July 15, 2015 in so far as the same is against the petitioner. The petition is disposed of accordingly.