9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st appellate authority - the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the goods actually reached outside the State of U.P. and that the respondent is merely a transporter, appears to be perverse and without consideration to the relevant evidences and materials on record - The Tribunal should have considered each and every evidence which are on record and thereafter should have recorded its findings - failure of the Tribunal to do so renders the impugned order to be unsustainable – thus, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration – Decided in favour of revisionist revenue. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 578 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 15-10-2014 - Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Applicant : S. C. For the Respondent : Mrs. Mamta Singh ORDER 1- Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Mamta Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2- In all the above noted revisions common question of law is involved. The revisions are admitted on the following question of law : Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion uploaded on the website as per details of Form-16. As per the uploaded information, the respondent is a consignor, which also corroborates with the challan accompanying the goods. The other alleged consignors, namely, Vinay Sales and United Hardware and Paints, New Delhi, were found non-existent. The goods shown in the invoices are alleged to have been sold against Form-C, but the copies of Form-C were not producded. 5- On these facts, the allegations of the respondent that the goods reached outside the State of U.P., was rejected by the assessing authority. 6- Aggrieved with the penalty order, the respondent file First Appeal No.24 of 2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 2.4.2014. Against this order the respondent had filed Second Appeal No.358 of 2014, which was allowed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Moradabad Bench, Moradabad vide order dated 14.8.2014 on the grounds namely, that the respondent is merely a transporter and not a dealer and secondly, he discharged the burden of unloading the goods outside the State of U.P., as evident from the information of Form-16 of Uttarakhand State uploaded on the website. 7- Aggrieved with this order, the applicant has fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me day, i.e., 19.8.2013 another truck No.HR-55L-3180 was intercepted by the same authority. Challan of the respondent and his three bilties, invoices of M/s R.S. sons (without address ), M/s Vickky Enterprises, Delhi and M/s Mahalaxmi Traders, Delhi and Form-16 of Uttarakhand State issued by the alleged purchasers M/s Mittal Enterprises, Khateema, which was found totally blank were accompanied with the goods. A TDF was also found. The alleged firms of Delhi on verification, were found to be non-existent. In another TDF downloaded by the respondent of the same date, the route of truck was shown U.P. Boarder-Hapur-Moradabad Thakurdwara, while as per TDF produced by the driver of the vehicle, the route was shown as U.P. Boarder-Moradabad-Pilibhit. In the information uploaded in Form-16 on the Website of Uttarakhand, the name of the respondent is shown as consignor. The goods were found materially different in comparison to those mentioned in the accompanying bilties and invoices. Number of goods were found short or different in quantity/quality. Similar discrepancies as has been noted above in other revisions were also found. On these facts the assessing authority imposed penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Uttarakhand State issued to M/s Mittal Enterprises, Khateema and a TDF were also found. Against total 266 articles disclosed in the bilties, 264 articles were found in the truck. On verification, number of goods were found either different or short or in excess. Detail facts in this regard are mentioned in the penalty order. On verification, all the Delhi firms were found non-existent. No payment detail could be submitted by the respondent against the alleged invoices. Under the circumstances, a penalty of ₹ 11,66,200/- was imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad Unit-V, Moradabad vide order dated 28.11.2013. 17- Against this order, the applicant filed First Appeal No.23 of 2014, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 2.4.2014. The respondent filed second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Moradabad Bench, Moradabad, which was allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 14.8.2014 on the sole ground that the respondent is merely a transporter and not a dealer and has discharged his burden. Against this order the applicant has filed the present revision. 18- TTR No.583 of 2014 On 1.9.2013, a truck No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A perusal of the above noted facts in these seven revisions clearly reveals that four trucks of the respondent was intercepted on 19.8.2013 and three trucks were intercepted on 1.9.2014. These trucks were found accompanied with challan of the respondent and invoices of different alleged firms of Delhi. On verification, all the firms of Delhi were found non-existent. On physical verification, the goods loaded in the respective trucks were found different from those mentioned in the alleged invoices or the challans. Number of discrepancies were found, which are briefly mentioned above and are also recorded in detail in the respective penalty orders. As per invoices goods were shown to have been sold against Form-C. However, copies of firm-C were not produced by the respondent during the course of penalty proceedings. Even payment details could not be produced by the respondent to demonstrate the genuineness of the transaction or that the goods were actually delivered to the alleged dealers of Uttarakhand. In some Form-16 of Uttarakhand State, the respondent was shown as consignor. No proof of reaching of the goods could be submitted by the respondent at any stage of the proceedings e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
