Court No. - 30
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 224 of 2002
Petitioner :- M/S Sarkar Bidi Co. Ranipur Jhansi
Respondent :- The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow
Petitioner Counsel :- Alok Kumar
Court No.33
Trade Tax Revision No.224 of 2002
====
M/s Sarkar Bidi Company,
Rampur, Jhansi.
Vs.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax,
U.P., Lucknow.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Standing Counsel for
the department.
This revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal
dated 22.1.2002 for the assessment year 1991-92 by which the Tribunal has
imposed a penalty on the assessee under Section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade
Tax Act. The questions of law referred to are hereunder:-
(A) Whether authorities can be permitted to impose penalty by ignoring
the other relevant document i.e. statutory forms, challan and bilty which
was accompanied with the consignment ?
(B) Whether penalty can be imposed merely on the basis of ravanna
issued by the Forest Department that too was defective as per the
certificate of Forest Department itself ?
(C) Whether transaction in question can be put for penalty under Section
13A(4) of the act in absence of any specific material?
(D) Whether authorities can be permitted to impose penalty under
Section 13A (4) of the Act merely on the basis of presumption?
(E) Whether sale can be presumed and penalty can be imposed merely on
the basis of presumed sale ?
(F) Whether authorities can be permitted to levy of penalty merely on the
basis of presumption in absence of any specific material?
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the order
imposing the penalty under Section 13A(4) is not justified on account of the
fact that the transaction of Tendu Leaves made by the assessee was duly
recorded in the books of account of the assessee and this is established from
the fact that the consignment of goods was accompanied with Form-31 in the
name of Company and the challan and the bilty also showed the name of the
assessee except that by mistake the Forest department had mentioned the
name of another party.
It is the contention of learned Counsel for the assessee that the fact that the
consignment was accompanied by Form-31 itself showed that no offence had
been made by the assessee under Section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
He has argued that the imposition of penalty is merely on the basis of
presumption that the assessee must have made a sale.
On the contrary he has argued that at the time when the goods were seized
they were got released by the assessee, who subsequently used the goods.
Other than the fact that there was a ravanna in the name of another party there
was no other material to show that the assessee had indulged in evasion of tax
by making sales of the goods that he was importing.
Learned Counsel for the assessee has also drawn the attention of this Court to
the observation made by the Tribunal that other than this act there was no
other act of any evasion found against the assessee.
Having heard learned counsel on both sides and having perused the material
on record, I am of the view that the imposition of penalty under Section
13A(4) is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of
the recorded statement of the authorities below that the goods were
accompanied by Form-31 in the name of the assessee itself, the penalty as
imposed on the assessee is deleted the impugned order dated 221.1.2002 is set
aside.
This revision is allowed.
Dt/-6.1.2010
S.P.