9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterference is required. The said findings has not been challenged - assessee has not attached the list along with the Form-A. Goods were imported without any registration and authority. When it is so, then the penalty levied is justifiable - Decided against assessee. - TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 131 of 1992 and 132 of 1992 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2014 - Dr. Satish Chandra, J. For the Appellant : Pradeep Agarwal, R.K. Dwivedi JUDGEMENT Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J. Both the revisions have been filed by the assessee under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 against the consolidated judgment and order dated 24.06.1992, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Second Appeals No. 254 255/1991 pertaining to the Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in which items to be imported were mentioned under the different heads. It is also a submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that there was no mala-fide intention on the part of the assessee. So, there is no occasion to levy the penalty. To support his submissions, he relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases:- (i) Commissioner of Sales-Tax vs. S/S. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Meerut Cantt., 1995 UPTC 285; (ii) Orient Paper Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore Another, 1969 STC 308; and (iii) Shyam Cold Storage vs. Sales Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur, (1976) 38 STC 386. Lastly, he made a request that the penalty may kindly be cancelled. On the other hand, Sri H.P. Sriva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Sales Tax Act. The ratio is not applicable in the instant case. Thus, the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist are not helpful in the instant case. From the record, it also appears that on 08.01.1982 in the application (Form-A) in Column 16A, the generating sets and pump panels were mentioned, but in Column 16B and 17, no item was mentioned. Merely, it was mentioned that the list is attached. The so called list was not available in the record as observed by the appellate authorities. It is also not cleared that where the said application was submitted. In the above mentioned circumstances, the Tribunal observed that on 08.01.1982, the assessee has submitted merely Form-A, but without any list. Concurre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
