9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ATI SAPRU , J. MS. BHARATI SAPRU J. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Namai Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. As the controversy involved in both these revisions is identical, the same is being decided by a common order treating the Trade Tax Revision No. 150 of 2001 as common case. The revision No. 150 of 2001 has been filed under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, in proceedings arising out of penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee under section 15A(1)(o) of the Act for the assessment year 1989-90. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories for sugar and cement plants a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, the purchaser also issued C forms to the assessee in respect of the second sales in the course of inter-State movement. Thus the transactions between the assessee and the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., carried on in this manner and the goods were received by the Sugar Corporation at Saharanpur by way of form XXXI issued by the Sugar Corporation at U.P. itself. This system carried on until the goods were detained at entry check-post at Sarsawan. The authority at check-post detained the goods and demanded a security for Rs. 1,04,00,000. The assessee filed Writ Petition No. 3691 of 1990 before the Lucknow Bench at Allahabad High Court and the goods were released under the orders of the court upon furnishing a bank guarantee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signment, as contemplated under section 28A(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and in all the documents accompanying the consignment, the name of the purchaser was mentioned as the applicant-company and the destination as that of U.P. State Sugar Corporation, hence the use of form XXXI of U.P. State Sugar Corporation, was absolutely valid and no penalty could have been legally imposed, in view of the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Aster Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [1990] 21 STI 348 (All) and Sumac Inter National Limited v. Sales Tax Officer [1990] 21 STI 336, was the order passed by Trade Tax Tribunal upholding the imposition of penalty justified? (ii) Whether during the penalty proceedings, wherein the consignee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the order passed by Trade Tax Tribunal is justified? The learned counsel for the assessee has argued at length on all substantial questions of law referred to and has sought to establish its case taking support from the decisions of this court rendered in the cases of Aster Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [1990] 21 STI 348 (All) and Hindustan Steel Ltd. [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC). Learned counsel has argued that the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the two aforesaid decisions and has failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, in which admittedly the goods in question were being imported within the State of U.P. at the instance of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., which have provided for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
