9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is mentioned that the department has taken any action against the said officers. Similarly, when the revisionist has not informed the department within the prescribed time, then how the department has issued Form 31 time to time without getting the verification of the previous Forms. - there is no concealment/malafide intention - revisionist has concealed the imported goods or resale the same. - the mere breach of provision of Section 28-A would not be sufficient for levy of penalty under Section 15-A (1)(o) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - Trade Tax Revision No. - 124 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 7-5-2012 - Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. For the Petitioner : M. M. Dewan For the Respondent : C.S.C. OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said declaration forms. So, it is the violation of Section 28-A. Finally, he levied a penalty of ₹ 5,38,778/- under Section 15-A(1) (O) of the Trade Tax Act. The same was confirmed not only by the first appellate authority but also by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the revisionist has filed the present revision. This Court vide an interim order dated 08.04.2004 has granted the stay on the penalty of amount. With this background, Sri M. M. Dewan, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the goods imported from outside the U.P. were exclusively used in the completion of contracts and the materials was not re-sale. He submits that the compounding scheme was accepted by the revisionist as well as the by the department, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 79. Lastly, he made a request that the penalty may kindly be canceled. On the other hand, Ms. Madhurima Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel justified the impugned order by mentioning that the assessee has used total 57 forms but the same were neither shown at the check posts nor in the department for the purposes of verification. The revisionist has not given any information to the department pertaining to the import of the goods. She further submits that in Form-31, the dates are different as mentioned in the bills or in the other documents. The revisionist is bound to inform the department within 24 hours pertaining to the import of the goods from outside the U.P. Thus, the petitioner has violated the provision of Section 28-A of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Sanjeev Fabricks; JT 2010 (1) SC 192. Moreover, failure to furnish the Form 31 in time is a mistake of technical in nature for which no penalty can be imposed as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. State Bank of Patiala; 277 ITR 315 P H. Nowhere, it is mentioned that the revisionist has concealed the imported goods or resale the same. When it is so, then no penalty can be levied. From the record, it appears that the assessee never intended to cause any loss to the revenue or any element of evasion was established. So, the mere breach of provision of Section 28-A would not be sufficient for levy of penalty under Section 15-A (1)(o) of the Act. In view of above, the revision succeeds and is allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
