Court No. - 33 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 52 of 2003 Petitioner :- Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lko. Respondent :- M/S Vindhyawasini Ind. Cantt. Varanasi Petitioner Counsel :- C.S.C. Respondent Counsel :- B.J.Agrawal,P.Agrawal Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Heard learned standing counsel for the revisionist State and
Sri Piyush Agrawal for the assessee.
This revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act has
been filed by the revisionist State for the assessment year
1998-99 against the order dated 12.8.2002 passed by the
tribunal.
The questions of law referred to are as under:
“(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax
Tribunal is legally justified to set aside the penalty imposed under
section 10A of Central Sales Tax Act despite the dealer has sold the
petro-chemical purchased against form-C instead of using it in
manufacture while he was authorised to use the chemical in
manufacture only under the central registration application form-B?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to hold that there was no mens-
rea of the dealer despite the evidences available on record indicate
otherwise?
(iii) Wheher on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to hold that mens rea is important
ingredients for imposing the penalty under section 10A of Central
Sales Tax Act?”
The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the two items
which were transacted by the assessee were to be found in
its Form A was Central Registration Application and it was
not a case for imposing the penalty under section 10A of the
Act.
In view of the above, the order of the tribunal is justified. No
question of law arises. I see no reason to interfere with the
order of the tribunal.
The revision is dismissed as above. No costs.
Order Date :- 27.1.2010
rk