2009 (9) TMI 889 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of penalty imposed under sections 15A(1)(q) and deleted the addition made under section 7(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 cancelled by Tribunal Held that - As the assessee has already furnished sufficient evidence to prove that the goods have crossed the border of the U.P. and were never sold in the U.P. The Tribunal is a final fact finding authority as per the ratio laid down in the case of Kamala Ganapathy Subramaniam v. Controller of Estate Duty 2001 (2) TMI 132 - SUPREME Court thus find no reason to interfere with the Tribunal s impugned order which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. No question of law emerges from the impugned order of the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against cancellation of penalty and addition under U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis:
The Department filed revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, challenging the Trade Tax Tribunal's decision cancelling the penalty under sections 15A(1)(q) and deletion of the addition made under section 7(4). The case involved M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, a company manufacturing tractors in U.P. The Department presumed tractors sent to Uttranchal were sold in U.P. due to transit passes not being cancelled at the outgoing check-posts. Orders were passed ex parte, confirmed by the first appellate authority, but the Tribunal examined evidence submitted by the assessee and found vehicles had crossed U.P. borders. The Tribunal relied on precedents like Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U.P. [1986] 62 STC 381 (SC) and observed the rebuttable nature of the presumption under section 28B of the Act.

The High Court noted the Tribunal correctly applied the rebuttable presumption principle and the Department's failure to rebut the evidence submitted by the assessee. The Court emphasized the Tribunal's role as a final fact-finding authority, citing Kamala Ganapathy Subramaniam v. Controller of Estate Duty [2002] 253 ITR 692 (SC). It concluded the assessee provided ample evidence that the goods had left U.P. and were not sold within the state. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order, stating no legal question arose from it.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed all Department's revisions, finding no merit in them. The judgment highlighted the importance of the Tribunal's fact-finding role, the rebuttable nature of presumptions under the Act, and the need for sufficient evidence to counter such presumptions. The decision underscored the significance of evidence in tax assessments and the authority of the Tribunal in determining factual matters.