9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on furnishing a cash security of Rs. 24,194 the goods were released in favour of the assessee. Thereafter penalty proceedings under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act were initiated against the assessee and the amount of security was converted into penalty. When the matter came to be heard in due course in second appeal by the Sales Tax Tribunal it sustained the penalty to the extent of Rs. 1,000 only as against the penalty of Rs. 24,194 imposed by the assessing authority. Feeling aggrieved the Revenue has preferred this revision against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. 2.. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3.. Section 15-A(1)(o) authorises the assessing authority to impose a penalty on any dealer or other person who imports or tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. In reducing the quantum of penalty the Tribunal has considered the facts of the case particularly from the angle as to whether in making import of the goods in question the intention of the assessee was to evade assessment or payment of tax. In respect of the raw material imported by the assessee it paid custom duty by two demand drafts much earlier to the date when the goods were checked by the concerned authority at the check-post. The Tribunal also found that the goods in dispute were duly recorded in the account books of the assessee. It was explained before the Tribunal that the assessee instructed its clearing agent at Bombay to send the goods in question by truck for which form 31 had all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier that import of the goods in violation of section 28-A but without an intention to evade assessment or tax in making such an import is not exigible to penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. [1983] 53 STC 54 (All.). The correctness of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal have not been specifically challenged in this revision. The question framed for consideration of this Court in the memo of this revision is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified in reducing the amount of penalty in spite of adverse material available on record. The expression whether on the facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. 7.. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that it was a case of bona fide mistake as a result of which the documents were prepared not in the name of the assessee but in the name of another dealer and a further finding that in the import of the goods there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade the payment of tax or assessment, in my opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any error of law when it reduced the penalty to a token amount of Rs. 1,000 because technically there was a default in compliance of section 28-A of the Act. 8.. The revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VAT & Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
