9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turned by the sister concern, according to which the goods were not sealed or fresh. The sales tax authorities also examined Sri Kishan Lal, son of Sri Sewa Ram, proprietor of Malik Transport Company, Hathras, through whom the goods were purportedly sent from Hathras to Delhi on 24th June, 1985, but he denied having transported the petitioner's goods in question to Delhi on 24th June, 1985. Also the transporter stated that there was no question of having transported the petitioner's goods under bilty No. 589 on 24th June, 1985, as during the period 1st May, 1985 to 26th June, 1985, bilty book of serial Nos. 401 to 500 was used. The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), therefore, did not accept the case of the petitioner that the goods sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (1), so far as material and sub-section (4) are as given below: "13-A(l). An officer authorised under sub-section (2) of section 13 shall have the powers to seize any goods (i) which are found in the dealer's place of business or vehicle or any other building or place; or (ii) which such officer has reason to believe to belong to the dealer and which are found in any place of business or vehicle or building or place, but are not accounted for by the dealer in his accounts or registers or other documents maintained in the course of his business: ................. (4) If such authority, after taking into consideration the explanation, if any, of the dealer or, as the case may be, the person in-charge and giving to him a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o post them in the books. Then the learned Standing Counsel argued that sub-section (4) does not refer to account books only but to registers and documents as well. While elaborating his argument, he urges that bill and challan are also documents and the goods must have been shown in them by the assessee. This argument is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as bill and challan are issued by the selling dealer and not by the purchasing dealer. The assessee being a purchaser of the seized goods, according to the Revenue, there was no occasion for it to show the seized goods in bill and challan. If that was the omission, that could be attributed to the selling dealer and not to the assessee. Then it was argued for the Revenue that the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... None of the authorities below has given any good reason to bring this case within the ambit of section 13-A(4). The only finding of the Tribunal given in paragraph 11 of the impugned order is that the intention of the dealer was not to make entries in the account books. It is difficult to conclude on the facts of the case that the intention of the dealer was not to make the entries in the books. Moreover, the penalty under section 13-A(4) cannot be levied merely on account of the intention of the dealer not to show the goods in the account books, but penalty could be levied only when the goods were wilfully omitted from being shown in the accounts and this conclusion can be reached only after the goods having been received at the destinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
