9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2010 - PANKAJ MITHAL, J. PANKAJ MITHAL J.- The assessee/revisionist is a registered dealer of Allahabad engaged in the business of foodgrains. The aforesaid dealer had placed an order for supply of 290 bags of groundnuts to a dealer of Madhya Pradesh at Sagar. The Madhya Pradesh dealer despatched the aforesaid goods through a transporter M.P. Delhi Roadlines. The said consignment was intercepted at Shreenagar-Mahoba check-post while entering U.P. and the goods were detained. A show-cause notice was issued on December 27, 2001 as to why the goods may not be seized on one of the grounds that it was not accompanied by form XXXI. The dealer submitted reply on December 29, 2001 along with form XXXI. The form XXX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with. Section 28A of the Act prescribes that a person who intends to import any goods into the State of U.P. from outside shall obtain the prescribed form of declaration from the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the area. It further provides, where such goods are consigned by road the importer shall furnish to the consignor the declaration in the prescribed form and the driver or the person in-charge of the vehicle carrying such goods shall carry with him the copies of such declaration duly verified by the consignor in the prescribed manner together with such other documents as may be prescribed. Rule 83 of the Rules framed under the Act prescribes for carrying the following documents: (i) declaration in form XXXI; (ii) ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified. A similar view was expressed in another decision of this court Interarch Building Product Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in [2011] 40 VST 133 (All); [2010] UPTC 503. In this case the form XXXI was produced by assessee/dealer before passing seizure order and the court held, in the circumstances, that intention to evade tax was not reflected so as to attract the penalty provision. In Multitex Filtration Engineering Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2009] 40 NTN 389 his Lordship of this court relying upon a Division Bench decision in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., Ghaziabad v. State of U.P. [1983] 53 STC 54 (All); [1983] UPTC 183, held that the attempt to evade tax is a mandatory pre-condition for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
