9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven one form 31 No. FW 89-0211689. At the check-post, driver of the vehicle submitted the consignment note, builty, insurance cover note and form 31. The check-post officer seized the vehicle on the ground that under the contract for hire, the applicant was owner of the vehicle, and therefore, form 31 should be of applicant and not of M/s. Tata Chemical Ltd. In pursuance of the seizure order a penalty proceeding under section 15-A(1)(o) was initiated. Reply to show cause notice was not accepted and a sum of Rs. 1,58,400 was levied towards penalty under section 15-A(1)(o). The applicant filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner which was allowed and penalty order was quashed. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed appeal before the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax is made out by the assessing authority or Tribunal which is necessary for levying the penalty under section 15-A(1)(o). Learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of the Tribunal. I have perused the order of the Tribunal and heard the authorities below. There is no dispute that the movement of crane was in pursuance of contract with M/s. Tata Chemical Ltd., for providing the crane on hire. Crane was to be used by Tata Chemical Ltd., and therefore, it cannot be said that for the import of the said crane, use of form 31 of M/s. Tata Chemical Ltd., was not in accordance to law. The ownership of crane might be with the applicant but M/s. Tata Chemical Ltd., was the importer of such crane for their use, taken on hire. In any view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., Ghaziabad [1992] UPTC 902, the court held as follows: This revision needs to be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Security has been demanded only on the ground that the form No. 31 was in the name of the applicant whereas it should have been in the name of the leasing company which had placed the order for supply of the machinery. Since all the documents accompanying the goods were in the name of the applicant, form No. 31 was also issued by it and, therefore, there is no illegality in the same because the purpose of form No. 31 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. 31 so issued to tax the party which is lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , form 31, form 35 and challan, etc., which were all in the name of the applicant. The goods were seized and the security was demanded on the ground that form 31 was in the name of the 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. 31 was also issued by it and, therefore, there is no illegality in the same because the purpose of form No. 31 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. 31 so issued to tax the party which is liable for it. Therefore, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
