9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction was not proposed to be concealed. Penalty may be imposed under Section 15A(1)(o) of the Act for contravention of Section 28A(6) of the Act, an intention to evade is sine qua non before the goods may be seized, by virtue of section 28A (6) of the Act - In the facts of the present case, there is no finding has been shown to have been recorded as to intention to evade tax. Penalty appears to have been levied merely on account of absence of Form 31 being produced at the first instance, when the goods reached the entry check post at Bhopura. Revision allowed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 362 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2018 - Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. For the Applicant : Aditya Pandey For the Opposite Party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so, Form-35 was filled up by the driver of the truck at the time of seeking entry into the State of U.P. at the check post Bhopura. No discrepancy was noted even with respect to the entries made in that form. However, the import declaration form being Form-31 required to accompany such goods by virtue of Section 28A of the Act, was not found. It occasioned the seizure of goods and also issuance of the penalty notice of the assessee. 5. In it's reply, the assessee had explained that the transaction was one of stock transfer which was duly evidenced by all other documents found accompanying the goods namely, stock transfer invoice; lorry receipt and; Form D-3 under the Haryana Act, all of which have been filled up at the dispatch depot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee produced the import declaration form soon upon the issuance of the show-cause notice proposing to seize goods. Therefore, it has been submitted that, the inadvertent error in not producing the form along with the goods, did not amount to a contravention as contemplated for the purpose of imposition of penalty. In this regard, reliance has been placed on two decisions of this Court in the case of M/s. Prakash Enterprises, Ghaziabad vs. CST reported in 2000-U.P.T.C. at page 1098 and a later decision of this Court in S/s. Ramesh Chandra Santosh Kumar Vs. CTT in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 529 of 2003, decided on 23.07.2010. In both decisions, the Court had opined that mere absence of Form-31 could not give rise to a penalty under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act, an intention to evade is sine qua non before the goods may be seized, by virtue of section 28A (6) of the Act. In the facts of the present case the no finding has been shown to have been recorded as to intention to evade tax. Penalty appears to have been levied merely on account of absence of Form 31 being produced at the first instance, when the goods reached the entry check post at Bhopura. In the undisputed facts of the case noted above and in light of the earlier decisions of this court in M/s. Prakash Enterprises, Ghaziabad vs. CST reported in 2000-U.P.T.C. at page 1098 and S/s. Ramesh Chandra Santosh Kumar Vs. CTT (supra) the penalty under section 15A (1) (o) of the Act could not be imposed. 12. Consequently, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
