9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee revisionist and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. This revision is directed against the order of the tribunal dated 14.2.2013 arising from proceedings for penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The assessee revisionist carries business of manufacture and sale of Besan for which purpose it purchases yellow peas as a raw material. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re in excess the penalty could not have been imposed on the total value of the entire consignment and should be on the basis of the value of the goods found in excess only. In view of the above, the following two questions of law arise for consideration: 1. Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case imposition of penalty was justified? 2. Whether the penalty could have been impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of evaision of tax in transportation of such excess goods. In M/s Hyderabad Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow 1996 U.P.T.C.776, where the dealer was facing penalty proceedings under Section 28-A(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 this court in view of the status of the dealer observed that the levy of penalty suffers from sheer perversity of thought an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of tax, if any, would have been only on the above excess bags found and, therefore, the penalty ought to have been in tune with the value of the said excess goods. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the above questions are answered in favour of the assessee and it is held that the penalty proceedings under the facts and circumstances of the case were not justified and, in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
