9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Applicant did not have any establishment in the State of U.P. Applicant had received an order from M/s. Kisan Products Ltd., Bareilly, a registered dealer in the State of U.P. for supply of citric acid. For the supply of citric acid to M/s. Kishan Products Ltd., Bareilly, applicant had booked order to M/s. Citurgia Bio Chemicals Ltd., Surat, and for import of the goods M/s. Kisan Product Ltd., Bareilly, had provided one form XXXI No. FT-1988-1852068. M/s. Citurgia Bio Chemicals Ltd., Surat, prepared the bill in favour of the applicant for ten tons citric acid and in turn applicant prepared two invoice Nos. 522 and 523 dated August 8, 1989 in favour of M/s. Kisan Products Ltd., Bareilly. In the bill a seal had been fixed stating "sale by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty under section 15A(1)(o). Applicant filed appeal before Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, which was dismissed. Dealer further filed appeal before Tribunal, Meerut which too was rejected vide order dated September 13, 1990. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, the present revision has been filed. 3.. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate and learned Standing Counsel. 4.. I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. Tribunal has confirmed the penalty by disbelieving the case of the applicant that the transaction was covered under section 6(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. For rejecting the plea, Tribunal has given various reasons. It is not necessary to refer to those reasons bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which were all in the name of the applicant. The goods were seized and the security was demanded on the ground that form XXXI was in the name of applicant, whereas, it should have been in the name of leasing company which had placed the order for supply of machinery. This Court held that, "all the documents accompanying the goods were in the name of the applicant, form No. XXXI was also issued by it and, therefore, there is no illegality in the same because the purpose of form No. XXXI is to bring the transaction to the notice of the department so that it may not remain unaccounted. It is now for the department on the basis of form No. XXXI so issued to tax the party which is liable for it. Therefore, it becomes immaterial whether the for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 (All.); 1989 UPTC 1067. I have perused the order of penalty. The Sales Tax Officer could not make out any case of an attempt to evade the payment of tax. The levy of penalty only on the ground that from the document, the claim of the applicant under section 6(2)(b) was not established is not justified. Tribunal has also not made out any case of an attempt to evade the payment of tax and has upheld the order of the penalty only on the ground that the applicant could not make out a case that the transaction was under section 6(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the present case, it was found that the applicant had made declaration of goods voluntary at the check-post in form XXXV and other documents were also submitted, therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
