9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e security may be confined to four times of the amount of Tax. although the statute provides 40% by way of penalty but the 40% is the outer limit and it shall be borne in mind that the amount of penalty or security must have a co-relation with the tax sought to be evaded. Therefore, it is directed that the amount of security by way of cash deposit be reduced to four times of the amount of tax which may ultimately be found to be the amount sought to be evaded - Decided in favour of assessee. - Trade Tax Revision No. - 80 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 21-7-2014 - Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,JJ. For the Applicant : Vaibhav Pandey, Rahul Agarwal For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal and Sri Shubham Agarwal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same was not found satisfactory and thereafter by an order dated 11.3.2014 the Mobile Squad Officials seized the consignment and asked the revisionist that security at the rate of 40% for each in violation of VAT Act and Entry Tax Act at the estimated value of consignment being ₹ 16 lacs be deposited. Aggrieved the revisionist submitted an application before the Joint Commissioner under the proviso to Section 48 (7) of the U.P. VAT Act. It was contended that the entire consignment was duly shown in the books of account of the revisionist. The said application was rejected by the Joint Commissioner by order dated 20.3.2014 and the seizure order was confirmed. Aggrieved the revisionist approached the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Luckno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding recorded by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow particularly para-6 thereof the finding recorded by the Tribunal that when the goods were seized and the driver of the vehicle interrogated he could not produce the requisite Form 21 and Form 38 under the U.P. VAT Act and the U.P. Entry Tax Act respectively and had stated that the goods were meant for M/s Lucky Traders, Unchahar Raibareilly. So far as the contention of the revisionist that the goods were meant to be delivered to five different dealers and therefore, the total weight of the consignment would come less than 9.0 M.T. is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is that on notices being issued to the said dealers, four out of five dealers denied that the consignment wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revision in part and held that imposition of the penalty to the extent of 40% is not based on any relevant material. In M/s Godawari Steels (supra) the facts of the case are somewhat identical to that in the present revision where the finding recorded by the Court that the consignment was not accompanied by the relevant document Form XXXI. This Court held that the imposition was at the stage of seizure and not at the stage of penalty and the Court held that imposition of demand of security at the rate of 40% is unjustified and reduced the same to the extent of 15% of the valuation of the goods subject to cash deposit by the revisionist before the authority. Sri Rahul Agarwal subsequently submitted that the amount of penalty being 40% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
