1999 (5) TMI 586 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for non-accompaniment of form XXXI with a consignment.

Analysis:
The revision petition challenged the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dismissing the dealer's appeal against the penalty of Rs. 1,37,064 imposed under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act for the assessment year 1995-96. The consignment of goods detained due to the absence of form XXXI was being sent to the dealer's location. The consignor's objection that the goods were supplied in accordance with an order, supported by a form XXXI sent by the purchaser, was initially accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, leading to the cancellation of the penalty. However, the assessing officer of the dealer initiated penalty proceedings, upholding the penalty citing the dealer's obligation to ensure all necessary documents accompanied the consignment.

The penalty was imposed solely due to the absence of form XXXI with the consignment. The consignor's responsibility to supply goods at the purchaser's place was acknowledged in earlier proceedings. The dealer's explanation that the default lay with the consignor, who failed to deliver form XXXI despite receiving it from the purchaser, was not accepted by the Trade Tax Officer. Section 28-A of the Act outlines obligations for importers, requiring the dealer to furnish form XXXI to the consignor, which was done in this case. The statutory provisions support that the dealer should not be penalized if the consignor fails to comply with document requirements.

The High Court emphasized that the consignor, as the actual importer bringing goods into the state, was responsible for ensuring compliance with transport regulations. The dealer, as the recipient, had fulfilled its obligation by providing form XXXI to the consignor. Observations regarding the consignor's conduct, such as delayed objections and failure to produce form XXXI promptly, were not grounds to penalize the dealer. The court concluded that the penalty on the dealer was unjustified, as the consignor was the party obligated to adhere to section 28-A requirements.

In light of the above analysis, the High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and quashing the penalty imposed on the dealer. The court ruled in favor of the dealer, emphasizing the consignor's primary responsibility for compliance with transport regulations and the dealer's fulfillment of its obligation to provide form XXXI.