9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment year 1997-98. The applicant was a registered dealer and was carrying on the business of edible oil. The applicant had purchased one tanker of edible oil from M/s. Ashoka Oil Mill, Newai, district Jaipur against bill No. 3693 dated February 9, 1998 and was transporting the goods through tanker No. USV9475. On February 10, 1998 at the check-post, Kargole, bill No. 3693, dated February 9, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has produced the original copies of show-cause notice under section 28A of the Act, reply dated February 10, 1998 and the seizure order dated February 10, 1998. He submitted that before the Check-post Officer, bill and builty were produced and it was told that the declaration form was left with the seller, therefore, it could not be produced. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considerations to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. In the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., Ghaziabad v. State of U.P. reported in [1983] 53 STC 54; [1983] UPTC 198, a Division Bench of this court held that the goods under section 28A of the Act cannot be seized and the penalty cannot be levied merely because goods were not accompanied by the declaration for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, the goods were seized in the absence of declaration form without making out any case of an attempt to avoid the declaration of goods. Similarly in the penalty order no case of an attempt to evade the tax has been made out and the penalty has been levied merely on the ground that the goods had been imported without declaration form. In this view of the matter, penalty is not sustainable and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
