2014 (2) TMI 1091 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Use of Form -C and Form 31 to import the chemicals and machinery without permission - Permission was only for hides and skins - Penalty u/s 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act - First Appellate Authority has reduced the penalty and the Tribunal has confirmed the same - Held that - assessee has imported the goods without having the proper sanction. The permission was only for the hides and skins but Form C and Form 31 were utilized for importing various chemicals and machinery. Thus, the the assessee has imported the goods without proper permission, wrongly by misrepresenting the facts - The assessee has imported the goods by knowing that the same are without any permission. The First Appellate Authority has already reduced the amount of penalty and at present, there is no further scope to reduce the same - impugned order passed by the appellate authorities appears reasonable and the same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein for all the assessment years under consideration - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against consolidated order by Trade Tax Tribunal for assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90.

Analysis:
The case involves two revisions filed by the assessee-revisionist against a consolidated order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal. The assessee, engaged in the business of hides and skins since 1976-77, faced penalties for importing chemicals and machinery without proper permission during the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. The accountant's statement in 1979 indicated no immediate need for imports, but subsequently, the assessee applied for registration under the Central Sales Tax Act. Despite having permission only for hides and skins, the assessee used Form-C and Form 31 to import other goods, leading to penalties under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act.

The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the imports were made in good faith to meet immediate requirements, citing precedents to support the absence of mens rea. However, the department's counsel supported the Tribunal's decision. The court observed that the assessee imported goods without proper sanction, misusing forms meant for hides and skins. The court distinguished cited cases from the current scenario, emphasizing the deliberate nature of the unauthorized imports. The First Appellate Authority had already reduced the penalty, and no further reduction was deemed necessary.

After considering the facts and circumstances, the court upheld the Tribunal's order, finding it reasonable for all the assessment years in question. No legal issues emerged from the order, leading to the dismissal of both revisions for lacking merit. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to permissions granted and the consequences of misrepresenting facts in import transactions.