1995 (12) TMI 360 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for non-compliance with form XXXI requirement during transportation of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

The revision petition was filed against the Trade Tax Tribunal's order, which partially allowed the dealer's Second Appeal No. 52 of 1993, reducing the penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) from Rs. 54,252 to Rs. 40,689. The petitioner, a manufacturer of Lindane (T), purchased raw material B.H.C. (T) from a supplier in Madras. A truck carrying the raw material entered Uttar Pradesh without the required form XXXI, leading to its detention and issuance of a show cause notice. The petitioner explained that the missing form was due to an oversight during transhipment at Nagpur, and it was promptly provided to the authorities. Despite this, a penalty was levied, and subsequent appeals were unsuccessful, with the Tribunal considering the driver's conduct in avoiding the check-post and making false statements about the missing form.

The High Court analyzed the facts and found that apart from the missing form XXXI, all other necessary documents accompanied the consignment, clearly indicating its origin and destination. The petitioner had sent the missing form along with others to the supplier in Madras, and there was no evidence of intentional tax evasion. The Court highlighted that the driver, not being an employee of the petitioner but a common carrier, could have faced consequences for non-compliance. The Court reasoned that even if the form was inadvertently omitted initially, prompt submission to the authorities should have sufficed, warranting no penalty.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and quashing the penalty entirely. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's actions did not indicate any deliberate evasion, and compliance was met once the missing form was provided. The judgment focused on the lack of evidence supporting the authorities' conclusions regarding the form's preparation and upheld the petitioner's contention of timely rectification of the oversight.