9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuary, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1992-93. The applicant is owner of Truck No. 17-A/1815. The driver of the truck Sri Moinuddin had obtained Form 34 no.1387 dated 16.1.1993 from Chaukhata check post which was to be surrendered at the exit check post. The goods was coming from Madhya Pradesh and was going to Bihar. Admittedly, the said Form 34 could not be surrendered at the exit check ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Nirman, Limited, receipt of road tax issued by the Parivahan Vibhag, Bihar Government and toll tax receipt. Assessing authority levied the penalty on the ground that the Form 34 could not be surrendered at the exit check post. First appellate authority rejected the appeal. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order, rejected the appeal. Heard learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at the exit check post. Learned Standing Counsel produced the record and submitted that for non-surrender of Form 34 at the exit check post, penalty has been rightly levied. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. Perusal of the record shows that necessary evidences were adduced before the check post offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-charge of the first check post or barrier after his entry into the State and deliver it to the officer in charge of the last check post or barrier before his exit from the State, failing which it shall be presumed that the goods carried thereby have been sold within the State by the owner or person-in-charge of the vehicle. Provided that where the goods carried by such vehicle are, after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a rebuttal presumption and in case, if by the evidences, it is proved that the goods had crossed State of U.P. and have not been sold within the State of U.P., the presumption stand rebutted. Thus, necessary evidences, which have been adduced by the applicant, has to be examined by the Tribunal to decide whether the goods had crossed the State of U.P. or not. Perusal of the impugned order shows t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
