9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned ACTO has rightly come to the conclusion that the form was re-used and which has been the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court). Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra), the said judgment in my view, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the apprehension of the ACTO that the form could be re-used has been found to be correct. On perusal of the order, it is found that there are cuttings and overwritings against the columns of value of the goods and also cuttings in the other columns of the form as referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 5-4-2001. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 5-4-2001 a vehicle bearing No. HR-38-D-3163 was intercepted and checked near Bharatpur, which was containing M.S. Scrap. On interrogation, the driver of the vehicle produced challan No. 01, dated 4-4-2001 of Gupta and Gupta Company, Agra. Builty No. 137, dated 4-4-2001 belonging to Shyamji Roadways, Hathras Road, Agra and declaration Form No. ST-18-A bearing No. 27681/16. The goods were being transmitted from Agra to Bharatpur. However, on perusal of the documents, it was found that in some columns of the declaration form, there were cuttings/overwritings with regard to price of the goods, date and number of vehicle and the name of the transport company. On finding such cuttings in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was deleted. 5. Hence, this revision petition. 6. Ms. Tanvi Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner-department submitted that there were cuttings and overwritings in the declaration form, shows wrong intention of the respondent-assessee as declaration form was re-used and it is a clear-cut case of tax evasion. She further submitted that the particulars of the declaration form ought to have been filled in without cuttings/overwritings and it is mandatory. She further submitted that it is a very strange case, wherein several cuttings were made and it is a clear-cut case of violation of provisions of Rule 53 and the ACTO was quite justified in imposing the penalty. She relied upon the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion that it could be reused and in such case, penalty could be imposed. Here in this case, there are overwritings and cuttings in the columns of the declaration form and in material particulars and the learned ACTO has rightly come to the conclusion that the form was re-used and which has been the view of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra). Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra), the said judgment in my view, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the apprehension of the ACTO that the form could be re-used has been found to be correct. In the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
