9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der various clauses of subsection (1) of Section 54. Therefore, in the first place, for a valid penalty to arise, the Assessing Officer must record his satisfaction in that regard. Then the satisfaction must arise with respect to a person who may be a dealer or any other person as well. With reference to clause (5) of sub-section (1) of Section 54, it is seen that the penal event arises if the person being subjected to penalty imports or attempts to import or abets to import any goods in contravention of Section 50, 51 of the Act, with a view to evade payment of tax. Admittedly, besides the fact that the penalty order was made at the hands of the ex-U.P. selling dealer, to the exclusion of the assessee, the Assessing Officer first drew u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings against the seller. Penalty stands deleted - revision allowed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 2 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2018 - Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. For the Applicant : Ajay Kumar Sharma,Suyash Agrawal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,J. 1. Heard Shri. Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee and Shri. B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the revenue. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Meerut dated 08.10.2015 arising from proceedings under Section 54(1)(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The revision was admitted on the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed by the revenue that on 08.11.2013, a penalty order was passed against M/s. Suresh Company, Sojat City, Rajasthan with respect to the transaction in question under Section 54(1)(14). While those proceedings have not been set-aside in any appeal and no order of any appeal authority or Court appears to exist in that regard, subsequently, on 21.01.2014, another penalty notice under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act was issued to the assessee, with respect to same transaction, that had resulted in the penalty being imposed on the assessee, of ₹ 3,02,856/-. The penalty has been upheld up to the stage of Tribunal. Hence the present revision. 5. In such facts, learned counsel for the assessee submits, the penalty order could have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of law which has no concern with the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, in the present case, specific charge is with respect to evasion of tax in the course of import of goods. 8. It has further been submitted by learned Standing Counsel that, for the purpose of imposition of penalty, it is open to the revenue authority to impose penalty either on the purchaser or the seller or such other person (including the purchaser and the seller taken together). Therefore, in his submission, the fact that the earlier penalty had been imposed on the seller would not create a bar on imposition of a similar penalty on the assessee who was the intended purchaser. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(5) may be imposed if the Assessing Officer 'is satisfied' that 'any dealer or other person' had committed the wrong described under various clauses of subsection (1) of Section 54. Therefore, in the first place, for a valid penalty to arise, the Assessing Officer must record his satisfaction in that regard. Then the satisfaction must arise with respect to a person who may be a dealer or any other person as well. With reference to clause (5) of sub-section (1) of Section 54, it is seen that the penal event arises if the person being subjected to penalty imports or attempts to import or abets to import any goods in contravention of Section 50, 51 of the Act, with a view to evade payment of tax. 12. Thus, learned Standin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a supplementary affidavit, the satisfaction is seen to exist solely against that dealer to the exclusion of any allegation or suspicion of infringement of law committed by the assessee. Thus, the satisfaction contemplated under Section 54(1) of the Act was recorded by the Assessing Officer on 08.11.2013 against the selling dealer only. 16. That having been done, there survived no occasion or jurisdiction for the Assessing Officer to draw up any other or further proceedings. The power to impose penalty stood exhausted. Besides the fact that the legislature does not contemplate imposition of a second or a subsequent penalty for the same transaction, to allow the Assessing Officer to now reach satisfaction against the present assessee (wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
