Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Omkeshwer Nath vs The Commissioner Of Trade … on 9 August, 2010
Court No. - 33

Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 597 of 2002

Petitioner :- Omkeshwer Nath
Respondent :- The Commissioner Of Trade Tax,U.P.Lucknow
Petitioner Counsel :- Rajes Kumar,Krishna Agrawal,Rishi Raj Kapoor
Respondent Counsel :- S.C.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist Shri Krishna
Agarwal and Shri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel
for the State.

The present revision has been filed by the assessee
under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax against an
order of the Tribunal dated 26.08.02, by which the
Tribunal has confirmed the penalty imposed on the
assessee for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section

The facts of the case are that the goods of the
assessee were seized at Allahabd. He was carrying his
goods from Agra to Indore. After the seizure was made,
a penalty was also imposed on the assessee under
Section 15A(1)(o).

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
assessee that at the relevant time the assessee had
applied before the authority that the goods which were
seized were entered into the books of accounts of the
assessee at his place of registration in Bihar and were
duly cleared by the Income Tax Authorities also in the
regular course of business. This contention is stated by
the assessee in paragraph-10 of the revision.
Thereafter, the assessee filed a supplementary affidavit
in support of this contention and placed before this
Court photocopies of the registration certificates under
the Bihar Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. In
response to the contentions made in the supplementary
affidavit, the State has filed a supplementary counter
affidavit and has not in any manner doubted the veracity
of the tax clearances filed by the assessee from Bihar.
Thus, in view of the facts as stated in the
supplementary counter affidavit, it becomes abundantly
clear that the averments made by the applicant in the
revision were correct. Since the entries of the items
were duly accounted for in the books of accounts at his
original place of business, the imposition under Section
15A(1)(o) is not justified.

The penalty imposed upon the assessee is deleted.
This revision is allowed.

The order of the Tribunal is set aside.
Dated : 9.8.10

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.184 seconds.