9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the U.P. Sales Tax Act; an order dated September 16, 1985, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Judicial, allowing the petitioner's appeal partly and reducing the penalty to Rs. 13,608 and the order dated September 26, 1989, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, dismissing the petitioner's second appeal. The petitioner is a trader situated at Calcutta. At about 9.15 p.m. on March 27, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere passed. The petitioner's case is that he has no place of business in the State of U.P. and therefore was not a dealer within the meaning of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and that no notice as required under section 13-A(3) was ever served on the petitioner. According to the petitioner the penalty if any should be levied on the dealer who had sold the goods and handed over the same to the transporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f goods and booked the same for transport. As is evident, it is admitted that the present petitioner had purchased the goods from one S.P. Chemicals of Moradabad. The orders of the authorities below show that no attempt whatsoever was made by the authorities concerned to find out whether the goods were duly recorded in the books of accounts of S.P. Chemicals or not. The dealer is not alleged to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the town at about 9.30 p.m. and therefore documents could be produced only the next day after the office of the transporter opened. The fact that the transporter did not show his builty book could be used against the transporter and not against the present petitioner. The penalty under section 13-A(4) cannot be levied mechanically against the purchaser situated outside the State of Uttar Pradesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
