9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the presumption raised under Section 28(B) of the Act is rebuttable, however, that principle is of less relevance in the facts of the present case. It would apply if issuance of the transit declaration form to the applicant was either admitted or established on record. In the instant case, from bare perusal of the reply furnished by the applicant being dated 05.06.2009 and 04.03.2010, it is clear that the applicant wholly disputed the issuance of such transit declaration form. In fact, he confronted the revenue authorities to make available a copy of such form so that he may establish the truth. Strangely, the revenue authority did not accept the request made by the applicant. It neither made available to him any copy of the transit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , J. For the Applicant : Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal,Suyash Agarwal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,J. 1. In compliance of last order, learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record certified copies of two orders dated 28.11.2017 passed under Section 7(4) read with Section 28(B) and; order under Section 15A(1)(q) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The same have marked as X and Y respectively. Those have been retained on record after copies of the same have been made available to the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010, specifically denied his involvement in the transaction, as alleged. It was categorically stated that the applicant never obtained the transit declaration form no. 1085 to transport any goods from Drummondganj check post through Naubatpur check post. After making such specific denial, the applicant prayed to be supplied a copy of the disputed transit declaration form as he pleaded ignorance regarding the same. That written demand is contained both, in the reply dated 05.06.2009 and 04.03.2010. 5. Without supplying the copy of the transit declaration form, the Assessing Authority, vide his order dated 31.3.2010 reiterated the penalty order. Perusal of the said order reveals that there is no discussion of the demand made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... store the penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- under Section 15A(1)(q) of the Act when the Department has failed to prove that the transit pass no. 1085 dated 10.06.2007 was issued by the entry check post Dramomnedganj? 10. Learned Senior Counsel, would submit, though a presumption exists under Section 28(B) of the Act of a dealer/applicant having sold the goods inside the State of U.P., that presumtion is a rule of evidence, rebuttable at the instance of the applicant. However, in the present case, other than making a bald allegation, the revenue did not discharge the preliminary burden to establish that the disputed transit declaration form had been obtained by the applicant. On its part, the applicant had specifically disputed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while it is an admitted position of law that the presumption raised under Section 28(B) of the Act is rebuttable, however, that principle is of less relevance in the facts of the present case. It would apply if issuance of the transit declaration form to the applicant was either admitted or established on record. In the instant case, from bare perusal of the reply furnished by the applicant being dated 05.06.2009 and 04.03.2010, it is clear that the applicant wholly disputed the issuance of such transit declaration form. In fact, he confronted the revenue authorities to make available a copy of such form so that he may establish the truth. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
