9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empted turnover / sales whereas from the record it is transpired that the transaction in question was deliberately concealed by claiming as an exempted turnover with ill intention - In view of the undisputed facts that the transaction in question was not the stock transfer as such was an inter-state sales, the entries and details of the purchasers was found in Exhibit 15, the claim of the revisionist is not acceptable that there was no intention on his part to evade the tax. The penalty proceedings under Section 15A(1)(c) of the Act were fully justified and there was no proper acceptable explanation is found - revision petition dismissed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 1223 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 20-8-2018 - Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stified ? IV. IV. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the revisionist has proved his case that it was a case of stock transfer according to entries made in the books of account and the revisionist has never furnished any wrong information and the assessing authority was justified in imposing penalty to the tune of ₹ 01,97,016/- ? V. V. Whether according to Section 15-A (1) (C) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 the department has discharged its burden of proving the concealment of the turnover by the revisionist. The relevant facts and circumstances of the case shows that the assessing authority has failed to discharge the same. VI. Whether the revisionist has proved his case that he has not evaded tax and the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity under Section 9(2) read with Section 15-A(1)(c) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The reply of the show cause notice was submitted by the revisionist claiming that there was no concealment on the part of the revisionist and further that no incorrect information was furnished. After assessment proceedings, the penalty proceedings under Section 15-A(1)(c) was initiated and a penalty order dated 31.3.2005 was passed, by which, the Authority has imposed the penalty to the tune of ₹ 1,97,016/-. Aggrieved by the order of penalty, an Appeal has been filed before the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), which was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal). Still aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Second Appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the details were known to the revisionist prior to movement of goods, therefore, the claim of the revisionist that it was the stock transfer cannot be accepted rather it was a inter-state sales. Learned counsel for the revisionist has not disputed that the assessment order passed under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, was upheld and the transaction in question was treated as inter-state sales. The Authorities below have categorically recorded the categorical finding of fact that the transaction in question was deliberately concealed by the Assessee, though the Assessee has tried to show the same as the stock transfer, therefore, the initiation of proceedings under Section 15A(1)(c) is fully justified. The Tribunal as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
