9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illy, it was unloaded at the factory siding itself. The entry of the goods were made in the books of account. It is stated that purchases were made against Form-C. At the time of the assessment proceeding purchases were shown to the Assessing Authority. On perusal of the books of account and details of purchases it was found by the Assessing Authority that the applicant had imported raw material and splints for ₹ 1,62,05,910 and before taking the delivery of goods Form 31 could not be got endorsed from the authorities and Form 31 relating to the goods valuing ₹ 11,33,901.91 were not submitted at the Check Post and thus for the violation of Section 28-A, a proceeding under Section 15-A (1) (o) was initiated. Applicant filed reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... While importing the goods, the authorities had not checked the goods. Seizure was not made. The purchases of the goods were shown in the books of account and such purchases were shown at the time of assessment by the applicant. It is on the disclosure of the such imported and purchased goods by the applicant, the Assessing Authority came to known about such imported and purchased goods. Therefore, on the facts it cannot be inferred that there was any attempt on the part of the applicant to evade the tax. On a consideration of Section 28-A, Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jain Sudh Vanaspati v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, reported in 1983 U.P.T.C. 198 held that the goods cannot be seized and penalty cannot be levied under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for this purpose that the importers were required to carry Form-31 with them, and they were required to produce those forms at the Check Post. In view of the categorical finding that the assessee never intended to cause any loss to the revenue or any element of evasion was established the mere breach of provision of Section 28-A would not be sufficient for imposition of penalty under Section 15-A (I) (o) of the Act . Commissioner of Sales Tax filed the appeal against the decision of this Court before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Oriental Carbon Ltd., reported in 1997 NTN (Vol. 10)-105 rejected the S.L.P. and upheld the decision of this Court and has held as below: The High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
