9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 4-B(6) of the U.P.Sales Tax Act. The dealer-opposite party has sent the notified goods, i.e., rice, after manufacturing it on consignment basis at Rs.3,50,192.50. The department took an objection that the dealer-opposite party has violated the terms of section 4-B of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings on this transaction. The case of the dealer-opposite party in the penalty proceeding was that it has deposited tax on the corresponding paddy for the manufacture of aforesaid rice. The assessing authority by order dated June 29, 1991 imposed penalty amounting to Rs.28,015. The order was confirmed by the first appellate authority by its order dated November 30, 1991. The Tribunal has set aside this order of penalty and reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions laid down in sub-section (2) for the grant of a recognition certificate, sells or otherwise disposes of the notified goods, for the raw material of which he has been granted such certificate, he shall be liable to pay as penalty such amount, as the assessing authority may fix, which shall be not less than the amount of tax that would have been payable under the provisions of this Act on the sale of such notified goods in the State and not more than three times the amount of such tax. It may be noticed that this section was subsequently amended by U.P. Act No.17 of 1987 and sub-section (6) was substituted. A plain reading of the aforesaid sub-section (6) of section 4-B of the Act clearly shows that the dealer who contravenes th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and was raised in reply to the show cause notice, otherwise not. Learned Standing Counsel has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of this court given in the case of Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.v.Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] UPTC 1167. This court in the aforesaid case has rejected the contention of the dealer that since in respect of such goods dealer has deposited tax before transferring the stock to the depots on the raw material no penalty is leviable. In the aforesaid case this court has clarified the position that whether the goods have been purchased at concessional rate of tax or not has to be seen with reference to point of time when purchase was made. If later on the dealer deposits the tax because of the situation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
