1995 (9) TMI 331 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Reduction of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) by the Trade Tax Tribunal.
2. Determination of whether the revisionist can be considered an importer of goods under section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
3. Interpretation of the obligations under section 28-A regarding the import of goods into the State.

Analysis:
1. The High Court was presented with a revision petition challenging the Trade Tax Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty imposed under section 15-A(1)(o) from Rs. 16,840 to Rs. 2,000 for the assessment year 1987-88. The Tribunal found that the dealer had committed a technical breach by not endorsing form 31 in accordance with section 28-A before taking delivery of the goods. The High Court examined the facts of the case and the legal implications to determine the validity of the penalty reduction.

2. The central issue revolved around whether the revisionist could be deemed an importer of the goods in question. The Tribunal's finding was based on the dealer's submission of form 31, which they considered as establishing the dealer as the importer. However, the High Court analyzed the provisions of section 28-A, emphasizing that the import of goods into the State was completed upon arrival at the post office in Agra, before the revisionist's involvement. The Court highlighted that the revisionist did not have any connection with the goods until after the excise authorities issued notices to the consignors and consignees, indicating that the revisionist was not the intended importer of the goods.

3. Regarding the obligations under section 28-A, the High Court clarified that the dealer's submission of form 31, without the intention to import or receive the goods into the State, did not automatically classify the dealer as an importer. The Court emphasized that the dealer's actions did not align with the definition of an importer under the Act. The Tribunal's assertion that mere submission of form 31 transformed the dealer into an importer was deemed legally unsustainable. The Court concluded that the revisionist had no obligation to comply with section 28-A requirements, and thus, no penalty could be imposed under section 15-A(1)(o).

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision petition, overturning the Tribunal's decision and quashing the penalty entirely. The Court emphasized that the revisionist's actions did not meet the criteria for being considered an importer under the relevant provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The Court also awarded costs to the revisionist and directed the issuance of a certified copy of the order to the Trade Tax Tribunal as per statutory requirements.