2011 (7) TMI 1069 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the imposition of penalty under section 48(5) read with section 32 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
2. Examination of the legality of the seizure of goods and imposition of penalty.
3. Reduction of penalty amount by the Tribunal.
4. Dismissal of the revision against the penalty.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a challenge against the imposition of a penalty under section 48(5) read with section 32 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The Tribunal upheld the penalty of &8377; 6,56,306 imposed by the authority, stating that the goods seized were not as per the documents produced at the time of seizure. The Tribunal found that the goods were being dealt with by the assessee outside the record maintained for the purpose, justifying the penalty imposed.

2. The legality of the seizure of goods and imposition of penalty was examined in detail. The revisionist, dealing in silver ornaments, had a consignment intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, which found discrepancies in the weight of the consignment. Despite the revisionist's claims, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, emphasizing that the goods were not in accordance with the documents produced during the seizure.

3. The Tribunal, while upholding the penalty, slightly reduced the penalty amount by &8377; 50,000. This reduction was based on the Tribunal's assessment that the original penalty was slightly excessive. The revisionist attempted to challenge this reduction, arguing that the transaction was duly recorded in the account books. However, the Court found no justification to further reduce the penalty amount.

4. The revision filed against the penalty was dismissed by the Court. The Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal were upheld for the purpose of imposing the penalty, and there was no illegality in the order passed. The Court concluded that the Tribunal had been fair in reducing the penalty by &8377; 50,000 and that the revision lacked merit, leading to its dismissal.

In summary, the judgment upheld the imposition of the penalty under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, based on the findings that the goods seized did not match the documents produced and were being dealt with outside the recorded information. The slight reduction in the penalty amount by the Tribunal was deemed fair, and the revision against the penalty was dismissed for lacking merit.