2006 (7) TMI 602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to Indore to Kashipur via Delhi. The assessing authority observed that there was a cutting in the invoice and the place of destination had been shown as New Delhi in place of Kashipur. It is also admitted to the department that the assessee was having a form No. 34 along with the goods. The assessing authority did not accept the version of the assessee and the assessing authority imposed a penalty under section 15(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 holding that the assessee had violated section 28-A. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the second appeal under section 9 of the Sales Tax Act, which was allowed vide order dated February 27, 1991 by which the penalty imposed upon the assessee was quashed. The depa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... contention. Perusal of the provisions of section 15(1)(o), section 28-A, rule 87 and rule 83, sub-clause (4) clearly reveals that if the goods are to be taken from outside the State of U.P. to some other State through the State of U.P. the assessee is required to produce form No. 34 at the time of inspection in U.P. It is also evident from the provisions of the above sections that if there is any violation of section 28-A, i.e., if he is not having form No. 34, the assessing authority in U.P. can impose the penalty under section 15A(1)(o) under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. This being the legal proposition the assessee had a valid form No. 34 at the time of inspection and the assessee had submitted an explanation before the assessing author .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eme Court has held in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Oriental Carbon Ltd. [1997] 10 NTN 105, that the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal that there had been no intention to cause any loss to the Revenue or to evade tax in importing into State certain consignment without form No. 31, the imposition of penalty on the ground of breach of provision of section 28-A was not good. The Uttaranchal High Court in Polyplex Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2004] 136 STC 389; [2003] UPTC 1097, has also taken the same view. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this revision. As such, the revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. - - TaxTMI - TMIT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X