9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or it is based on consideration of irrelevant material or non consideration of relevant material. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision Nos. 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 447,448, 450, 451, 453, 455, 463, 464, 465, 467, 507, 508, 509 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2014 - Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Applicant : S.C. For the Respondent : M. M. Roy, Shubham Agarwal, Suyash Agarwal ORDER 1. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, leaned Standing Counsel for the applicant, Sri Suyesh Agarwal, Sri Vishvajit, Sri Ashok Kumar, Sri M.M. Rai, Sri Shubham Agarwal and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsels for the respondents. 2. All these revisions involve common question of law as under :- Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tibunal was legally justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008? 3. Before I proceed to discuss the facts involved in each cases, it would be appropriate to summarize the law with regard to penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act. 4. Legal Provisions :- Section 50 of the Act provides for import of goods into the State by road against a declaration form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... likewise carry such certificates and documents as may be prescribed. (3) The driver or other person-in-charge of any vehicle carrying any goods referred to in the preceding sub-sections shall stop the vehicle when so required by an officer authorized under subsection (I) of section 45 or sub-section (I) of section 48 and keep in stationary for so long as may be considered necessary by the officer authorized under sub-section (I) of section 45 of sub-section (I) of section 48, as the case may be, and allow him to search the vehicle and inspect the goods and all documents referred to in the preceding sub-sections and shall, if so required, give his name and address and the names and addresses of the owner of the vehicle and of the consignor and the consignee of the goods. Section 54. Penalties in certain cases (1) The assessing authority, if he is satisfied that any dealer or other person, as the case may, has committed the wrong described in column 2 of the table below, it may, after such inquiry, if any, as it may deem necessary and after giving dealer or person reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct that such dealer or person shall, in addition to the tax, if any, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import of goods from out of State and submission of declaration or certificate before assessing authority. 6. As per scheme of the Act any person, who intends to bring, import or otherwise receive, into the State from any place outside the State any goods other than goods named, and described in schedule-I in such quantity or measure or of such value, as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf, in connection with business, shall either obtain the prescribed form of declaration, in such manner as may be prescribed, from the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the area, where this principal place of business is situated or in case there is no such place, where he ordinarily resides or shall down load from official website of the department in the manner as may be prescribed by Rule 58 or 59. The driver or other person incharge of vehicle carrying goods referred to in sub Section (1) of Section 50 is required to carry the declaration form along with other relevant documents and if on inspection he is found to transport or attempting or abetting to transport any goods to which this section applies without being covered by proper and genuine documents the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han by way of sale, by consignor and consignee of the goods with status and adress. The requirement as provided in Rule 54 has been substituted in Section 50 of the Act by Section 16 of U.P. Value Added Tax (Amendment) (Se From Clause (i) and Clause (ii) of Rule 54(1)(a) of the Rules, it is evident that declaration form for import cond) Ordinance, 2014 (U.P. Ordinance No. 6 of 2014) dated 28th July, 2014 by providing in sub section (2) that where goods are imported or otherwise received into the State by registered dealer, he shall carry duly filled such declarations or documents as may be prescribed. Section 50 and Section 54(1)(14) / 15 of the Act has been substituted by Section 17 of the amending Act as under : ---- Amendment of section 50 16. (1) In section 50 of the principal Act,-- (a) in sub-section (2),-- (i) in clause (a) for the words carry such declarations or documents as may be prescribed the words carry duly filled such declarations or documents as may be prescribed shall be substituted; (ii) in clause (b) for the words likewise carry such certificates and documents as may be prescribed the words likewise carry duly filled such certificates and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered dealer,-- (i) 15% of the value of goods if goods are of the description as embodied in Schedule-II or Schedule-III; (ii) twice the rate of tax leviable on the goods if goods are of the description as embodied in Schedule-V ; (iii) an amount equal to tax payable on the value of the goods if the rate of tax on goods exceeds forty percent; (iv) in any other case 40% of the value of the goods. (b) In case of a person other than the registered dealer tax payable on the value of goods or 40% of the value of goods whichever is higher. 15 Where the driver or person in charge of the vehicle, as the case may be,-- (i) fails to carry documents referred to in section 52 and also fails to prove that goods carried in his vehicle are meant for delivery to dealers or persons outside the State; or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be said that there is any assumption underlying therein that the goods to which the provision of Section 28-A applies have actually been sold inside the State and the section does not authorise the sales tax authorities either to seize the said goods or to penalise the importer thereof on any such assumption. Its present basis is the attempt to evade tax. The power to detain the goods and levy penalty in respect thereof cannot be exercised merely for the reason that the said goods were not accompanied by the requisite documents or that the documents accompanying them were false. This power can be exercised only if the goods detained are not accompanied by the requisite documents or that the documents accompanying them are false and if there is material before the detaining authority to indicate that the goods are being imported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act. The instant case, therefore, in our opinion, clearly falls outside the ratio of the case of Check Post Officer v. K. P. Abdulla Bros. [1971] 27 STC 1 (SC) as decided by the Supreme Court. 29. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such goods. Section 50(5) provides that sub-sections (3), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of Section 48 shall mutatis mutandis apply to goods detained under, sub-section (6), as they apply to goods seized under that Section. Rule 54 (3)(a) provides the owner, driver or any other person-incharge of the vehicle or vessel shall, in respect of such goods carried in the vehicle shall carry with him- (1) the declaration form for import in Form 38 or certificate in Form 39 in duplicate duly filled and signed by the purchaser and seller of the goods or where goods are transferred otherwise than by way of sale, (2) cash memo, bill, invoice or challan and (3) authorization for transit of goods/goods challan in triplicate. Rule 55(3) provides that if on such examination, the officer finds or has reason to believe that any one or more consignment are not covered by one or more of the documents referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 54; or any such documents in respect of any consignment is false, bogus, incorrect, incomplete or invalid, the officer shall issue a notice to the driver or person-incharge of the vehicle or vessel why the goods should not be seized. Rule 55(5) provides that if the officer is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit, shall impose on him for possession or movement of goods, whether seized or not, in violation of the provisions of Clause (a) of sub-section (2) or for submission of false or forged documents or declaration, (a) penalty equal to thirty per cent of the value of such goods. In the said provision neither for the seizure of the goods nor for the levy of penalty an attempt to evade the tax or assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under this Act is a condition precedent. While under Section 50(4), for the purposes of seizure, the attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax is a condition precedent. The same requirement is also for the purposes of levy of penalty under Section 54(14) of the Act. In this view of the matter the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries vs. CTO and Assistant Commercial Tax Officer vs. Bajaj Electricals Limited are to be read and understood with reference to the provisions of Rajasthan Act. 23. Having regard to the aforesaid decisions, referred hereinabove, I am of the view that the Division Bench decision in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., Ghaziabad and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others (Supra) still holds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hallan. Photostat copy of Form 38 has been produced before the Court during the course of hearing which is on record. Perusal of the said form reveals that all the columns have been filled except column No. 6. When the applicant was filling all the columns, there cannot be any plausible reason why he has left filling column No. 6. This act appears to be deliberate. Non-filling of column No. 6 i.e. non mentioning of challan number or invoice number may lead to an inference that in case of non-checking of goods, the said declaration form may be used for any other consignment of a similar quantity, quality, weight and value. In the declaration form, some of the columns may not have that much importance, namely, that in case if the invoice number or challan number is mentioned in column No. 6 and the column of weight, quantity or value is unfilled, then one can verify from the invoice or the challan wherein all these details are mentioned. The circular of the Commissioner is also to this effect. The circular dated 3.2.2009, issued by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, referred by the learned Counsel for the applicant, says that in case out of column Nos. 2 and 3, if one of the columns is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansport any taxable goods, in contravention of any provisions of this Act. 12. On the above discussion, it cannot be said that the law laid down in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. (supra) has been diluted, and that the requirement of intention to evade the tax is no longer the requirement under the Act before imposing the penalty. 13. We are of the view that the law laid down in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. Ghaziabad is still good law and holds the field even after enforcement of VAT Act and that before imposing penalty the authority has to give notice under Section 54 (1) and to record a finding either on the basis of material before it, or produced by the dealer, or any other person, or the department and which may include incomplete Form 38, (which may be a ground for seizure of the goods), that there was an intention to evade the payment of tax. The writ petition is dismissed, relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy to show the cause to the authority concerned, and thereafter, if it is still aggrieved, pursue the remedies available to it, under the Act. 13. In the case of M/s Mody Tyre Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, 2014 NTN (Vol. 54) 263 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n M/s JSW Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, 2014 UPTC 277. 20. This Court enquired from learned counsel for the assessee that the goods, which have been imported, did not contain such identification so as to distinguish the goods of one lot from others. If one Form 38 is successfully used in respect to certain goods imported without checking, the same Form 38 cannot be used in respect to another lot of goods imported by the assessee since column 6 was blank and whether such repeated use of Form 38 is possible or not, I did not get any satisfactory categorical reply at all. 22. I find no substance in the above explanation. In order to attract penalty under Section 54 of Act, 2008, what required is, only, an intention on the part of importer to evade payment of tax and not actual evasion of tax. If there is non compliance of any requirement of Sections 50 and 51 read with rules framed thereunder, one ingredient to attract penal provision would stand satisfied and as soon as second ingredient is also satisfied, imposition of penalty would answer requirement of statute. 24. Now I come to the authorities cited at the bar, in favour of Assessee. In Commissioner of Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not have been imposed. It was thus rightly set aside. 25. In Commissioner of Commercial Tax Lko. Vs. Jagrani Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Lko., 2013 NTN (Vol. 51) - 12, the flying- squad when intercepted a truck loaded with 194 pieces of carton found that amongst the documents available with the Transporter, Form 38 had its column 6 blank and merely on that basis, Assessing Authority levied penalty, which was upheld by first appellate authority but cancelled by the Tribunal in second appeal, hence, the Revenue came in revision. The Court noted that penalty was imposed only for leaving column 6 of Form 38 blank and the close scrutiny shows that space in column 6 being insufficient, information required thereto was printed by a computer and pasted on the back side of form 38. On verification, the said information was found in order. In these circumstances, this Court found that there was no justification for imposition of penalty and upheld Tribunal's order. 26. Then comes another decision in M/s Sharda Exports Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., VSTI 2013 (Vol. 18) B-1060 rendered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. Paras 5, 6 and 7 of judgment, if read together, show that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NTN (Vol. 51)-156, the Tribunal while deleting penalty, recorded a finding that there was no intention on the part of assessee to evade tax and hence this Court did not interfere. 29. In Meerut Food Industries Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, 2013 NTN (Vol. 52) - 161, the Court clearly recorded the stand of Revenue itself that there was no intention to evade tax on the part of dealer and it was not their case at all as is evident from the following: It is not the case of the revenue that there was intention to evade tax on the entire consignment or that apart from the above 33 bags of yellow peas the remaining consignment suffered from any discrepancy which may entail imposition of penalty. 30. In Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs. G.K.Binding Wires Ltd., 2013 NTN (Vol. 52)- 236, again the Tribunal while deleting penalty, recorded a finding that there was no intention to evade tax, hence, this Court dismissed revision preferred by the Revenue. 31. To the same effect are the decisions in Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Lucknow Vs. M/s Sai Construction and Builders, VSTI 2013 (Vol.18) B- 952, Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs. U.P. Food Company, 2013 NTN (Vol. 52) - 42, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the dealer / person and after considering all the relevant materials / evidences on record that there was an intention to evade payment of tax. The guilty mind is necessary to be established to impose penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act. If the last fact finding authority i.e. the tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there was no intention to evade payment of tax, same cannot be interfered with in revision under Section 58 of the Act provided the finding is perverse or it is based on consideration of irrelevant material or non consideration of relevant material. 16. Having summarized the legal position as mentioned above, now I proceed to examine each case on its own facts : 17. T.T.R. No. 441 of 2014 :- A branch transfer was made by the assessee from its unit Ballabhgarh Haryana to Ghaziabad which was intercepted by Assistant Commissioner Mobile squad second unit, Gautam Budh Nagar on 27.7.2009. The goods were accompanied with all the relevant documents. The only lacuna found was that column no. 6 of form 38 was not filled up. For this reason a penalty of ₹ 1,12,000/- was imposed under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act. The First Appeal filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods being brought by the assessee for use as raw material. On these facts the tribunal and first appellate authority recorded the findings of fact that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. The finding recorded by the tribunal are finding of fact. The revision is misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed. 20.T.T.R. No. 455 of 2014 :- The facts were that the assessee was found importing Toothpaste, Chyavanprash, Glucose etc. accompanied with bilty, challan dated 4th July, 2009 and Form-38 of which column no. 6 was left blank. Consequently, goods were seized and the same were released on deposit of the security. Penalty proceeding under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act was initiated and the same was imposed. The First appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-1 (Appeal)-III Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad vide order dated 29th August, 2012. The second appeal filed by the department was dismissed by the impugned order of the tribunal. The First appellate authority as well as the tribunal have recorded the findings of fact that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. The tribunal also recorded the findings of fact that there was no questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for sale but for use as raw material. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty. Second appeal filed by the applicant before the commercial tax tribunal, Ghaziabad was allowed by the tribunal vide impugned order dated 4th March, 2014 and the penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act was set aside. Tribunal recorded the findings that the assessee purchased goods against purchase order. The purchase was made against Form-C which was issued, goods were asccompanied with test report dated 18.2.2017 bill No.001541 dated 19.2.2012 and form-38. Not mentioning the date in Column No.6 of Form-38 was due to human error. On the basis of the aforesaid excise invoice, Cenvat Credit was taken. The goods in question and payment were duly recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal held that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. The findings recorded by the tribunal cannot be sustained on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The assessing authority has recorded clear finding that cash memo or bill number and date was not filled up in the column no. 6 in form 38. There was over writing in the G.R. A tax invoice no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f account of the assessee. The goods were accompanied with excise invoice, bilty and form VAT D-3 of Hariyana Government and as such there was no intention to evade payment of tax. The department has completely failed to establish import of the goods in question with intent to evade payment of tax. The assessing authority imposed the penalty only on the ground that form 38 was not available at the time when goods were intercepted. This may be a default on the part of assessee but this alone cannot be made sole basis to hold that there was intention to evade payment of tax. The assessee submitted proper explanation of non- availabiity of form-38, when the goods were intercepted. Tribunal has lawfully accepted the explanation. No discrepancy was found or pointed out by the assessing authority or the first appellate authority in the invoice and other documents. The fact that transaction in question were duly recorded in the book of account has not been disputed. Under the circumstances I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the tribunal. In result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. 24.T.T.R. No. 451 of 2014 :- Penalty of ₹ 1,84,000/- was imposed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansporter, but by mistake he left it. The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that there was no intention to evade payment of tax and the assessing authority also has failed to prove otherwise. The goods were well recorded in the regular books of accounts. It is not in dispute that the goods in question were being imported from Gujrat, which were accompanied with proper and genuine delivery memo, tax invoice, bilty and Vat form of Gujrat Government. Neither the assessing authority nor the first appellate authority has found any infirmity or illegality in the transaction except that form-38 was not found accompanying the goods. The transaction is well recorded in the regular books of accounts of the assessee. It is not in dispute that Form-38 was submitted, while replying the notice for seizure of goods. An explanation was submitted that Form-38 was sent to the transporter, but it was inadvertently left by the driver. The said statement/stand taken by the assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that on the facts of the present case that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. The findings recorded by the Tribunal under the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacture. It was not for sale. The first appellate authority and the Tribunal have recorded a finding of fact that the goods in question were a capital goods and the same was for use in manufacture and not for sale. On these facts, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. The penalty has been lawfully set aside by the appellate authority. The revision is wholly misconceived and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. In result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. 27. TTR No.464 of 2014 Briefly states the facts of the present case are that on 5.11.2012, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad Unit-III, Raksa, Jhansi, intercepted a vehicle No.UP-78 CN-2676. The driver of the truck produced GR No.587 of M/s. Patil Transport, dated 3.11.2012, Invoice No.116 dated 3.11.2011 of M/s V.K.Awadh Company, Trimbak Road, Nasik and Form-38 No.CC-2576335. The date of invoice was written in Form-38, but invoice number was not written. The goods were seized and the same were released on deposit of the security of ₹ 1,04000.00. The penalty proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the respondent on furnishing cash security of ₹ 1,31,250/-, equivalent to 37.5% of ₹ 3,50,000/-. Subsequent to the release of the goods the Deputy Commissioner initiated penalty proceedings against the respondent under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and concluded with the imposition of the penalty of ₹ 1,40,000/-. The first appeal filed by the respondent was allowed. Against the order of the first appellate authority, the applicant preferred Second Appeal No.174 of 2012, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by impugned order dated 4.2.2014. The Tribunal upheld the findings recorded by the first appellate authority. The facts of the present case clearly reveal that when the vehicle in question was intercepted, the same was found accompanied with proper Invoice, bilty and other documents. Form-38 was also found accompanied with the goods. However, Column No.6 of Form-38 was found unfilled. The assessing authority has not referred to any material to come to the conclusion that non-mentioning of invoice number and date in column no.6 of Form-38 would result in intention to evade payment of tax by the assessee.The first appellate aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vade payment of tax by the assessee. Genuineness of documents found accompanied with the goods as well as the fact that the same were not for sale but for use in execution of contract has not been disputed by the department. Under these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Revision is misconceived and is therefore dismissed. 30.TTR No.444 of 2014 In a sudden checking of the vehicle No. GJ-12-Y/6285 on DND Crossing at NOIDA in the night intervening 25/26th March,2010 the Assistant Commissioner, IInd Mobile Unit Commercial Tax Department, Noida had found it carrying industrial cable from Baroda (Gujrat ). On scrutiny of the papers column no.06 of the import declaration form was found blank The goods (industrial cable ) was detained and seized and later on released in favour of the respondent furnishing cash security of ₹ 8,60,000/-, equivalent to 40% of ₹ 21,50,000/-.Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner initiated penalty proceedings against the respondent under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, imposed penalty of ₹ 8,60,000/-. Assessee preferred first appeal which was allowed. Against the order of the first a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax, Tribunal (Bench-I), Ghaziabad by the impugned order dated 4.2.2014. Aggrieved with this order, the applicant has filed this revision. It is not in dispute that the assessee, who is a Civil Contractor, was sending old shuttering plates of 11515 Kg. from Karnal site to Varanasi site. The goods were accompanied with bilty loading slip and a letter pad containing the description of the goods and a Form-38 of which claim No.6 was left blank. The penalty was imposed only on the ground that Column No.6 was not filled up. The explanation of the assessee regarding no liability to tax was not disbelieved. The assessee submitted that it was merely by mistake that the transporter has not mentioned the date in Column-6. On these facts the first appellate authority has found that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. Once it is not in dispute that the goods were not for sale and thus not liable to tax, there cannot be any intention to evade payment of tax. In the absence of intention to evade payment of tax penalty under section 54(1)(14) of the Act, was not leviable. The findings recorded by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal are findings of fact. The rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The revision is misconceived. It is, therefore, dismissed. 33.TTR No.508 of 2014 Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on 4.10.2009 truck No.RJ-11GA/2332 was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-V, Ghaziabad and MS flat was found loaded in the truck accompanied with excise invoice-cum-challan dated 15.12.2008 of M/s Sunvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd. Hingna Road, Nagpur and Test Certificate No.PIU/QC/1137 dated 15.12.2008, G.R. No.416 dated 15.12.2008 of M/s Bhagwati Roadlines and a declaration form for import No.AA-1293052. It was found that in Column No.6 of Form-38 bill number and date was not mentioned. For this reason, the goods were seized and the same were released on deposit of security of ₹ 107400/-. Subsequently, penalty proceeding was initiated under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, and penalty of ₹ 3,58,000/- was imposed by the assessing authority vide order dated 22.9.2009. The First Appeal No.514 of 2009 filed by the assessee was allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 22.6.2010. The Second Appeal filed by the applicant before the Member, Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner, Commercial Tax-VIIth Unit, Agra. M.S. Angle were found loaded in the truck accompanied with Invoice No.5714 dated 14.1.2009 of M/s Sunvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd., a bilty of M/s Abhay Roadways, Nagpur and form-38. It was found that in Column No.-6 of form-38 bill number and date was not mentioned. For this reason goods were seized and the same were released on deposit of security of ₹ 1,68,000/-. Subsequently, penalty proceeding was initiated and vide order dated 24.9.2009, penalty of ₹ 5,60,000/- was imposed. The assessee filed First Appeal No.534 of 2009 which was allowed vide order dated 7.5.2010. Aggrieved with this order, the applicant filed Second Appeal before the Member, Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad-2, Ghaziabad, which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 26.4.2013. It is not in dispute that the goods were accompanied with invoice of the seller and a bilty of the transporter. Neither the genuineness of these documents was doubted by the assessing authority nor any infirmity was found therein nor they were found to be unaccounted. The first appellate authority has recorded a finding of fact that the invoice accompanied with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
