9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (9) TMI 595 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPenalty under section 15A(1)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 deleted - Held that - In the present case, perusal of the assessment order reveals that the adverse inference has been drawn after rejecting the explanation in respect of the stock found at the time of survey dated June 6, 1993 and exhibit 8, which was the note book. Tribunal having regard to the entire facts and circumstances held that the dealer had not concealed any turnover and accordingly, deleted the penalty. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show anything to the contrary. In view of the above, revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Issues:
1. Penalty under section 15A(1)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment year 1998-99. Analysis: The case involved a revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the order of the Tribunal that deleted the penalty under section 15A(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 1998-99. The dealer, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling paints, disclosed a taxable turnover. However, the assessing authority rejected the books of account and estimated the turnover based on a survey and entries in a notebook, leading to an enhanced turnover. The assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings under section 15A(1)(c) for alleged concealed turnover, which was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner but later deleted by the Tribunal. Upon review, the High Court analyzed the facts and arguments presented. The dealer explained that the disputed stocks were for testing purposes and mainly unfinished goods, while the notebook entries related to loading and classification of shades. The Court referred to precedents stating that an enhanced turnover due to rejected explanations does not automatically imply concealment without specific evidence. The Court noted that the Tribunal, considering all aspects, found no concealment of turnover and thus deleted the penalty. The Court dismissed the revision, affirming the Tribunal's decision. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty under section 15A(1)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment year 1998-99. The Court emphasized the importance of specific evidence of concealment and the need for a thorough evaluation of facts in penalty proceedings.
|
