9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revisionist to import the goods and in case such goods which are not included in the certificate of registration are imported, same would amount to penalty under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the instant case, the assessee despite coming to know that the goods/items have not been included in the list, he did not moved any application for disposal of pending application or moved a fresh application for including the goods in the certificate of registration - The revisionist in the present case was fully aware of the amendments incorporated in his certificate of registration and from the list of items appended therein, he should have been aware of the fact that his application for addition of goods had not been allowed and this the items had not been included in the list of goods he intends to import on Form C. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and therefore no interference in the same is required - Revision dismissed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 1031 of 2006, 1032 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2020 - Alok Mathur, J. For the Revisionist : Kunwar S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted the items in question unauthorizedly and illegally. 6. In response to the show-cause-notice, the revisionist filed a detailed reply stating that his application for addition of machines and parts thereof was still pending and in any case the same had not been rejected by the Assessing Authority and nor any communication in this regard was made to the revisionist, thus, the applicant was under the bonafide belief that the applicant was authorized to import the goods in question against Form-C, and therefore no violation of any provision has been made by him for which he can be penalized under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. 7. The Assessing Authority however did not accepted the explanation of the revisionist and imposed penalty in exercise of powers under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, holding that the revisionist had imported machines and parts thereof on Form-C without having been duly authorized in this regard and imposed penalty to the tune of ₹ 1,30,000.00 under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act by order dated 22.02.2005. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of penalty, the revisionist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration. He further submits that the penalty imposed upon the revisionist was just and proper and that there is clear violation of statutory provisions under the scheme of the Act. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. The admitted facts of this case are that the revisionist had moved an application for adding of Branch of his firm and also for addition of items. The competent authority had only added the Branch but no order was passed with regard to addition of the items. It is true that Form-C was issued in respect to the items to be imported, which did not find mention in the certificate of registration and the revisionist is claiming that the said goods were imported under the bona-fide belief that the goods have been included in the amended certificate of registration. 14. It is also uncontroverted that application regarding addition of items was not allowed nor were the items entered on the certificate of registration. Without addition of items in the registration certificate, it is not permissible for the revisionist to import the goods and in case such goods which are not included in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate as soon as he learnt about his fault. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the High Court had lost sight of the fact tha the dealer had used Form C to import items like sutli, tat etc., in addition to the cotton waste. Assuming that the dealer was of the bona fide belief that cotton included the cotton waste, it is hard to believe that there was some confusion in the mind of the dealer in so far as other items were concerned. Similarly, in the second set of appeals, it is evident from the impugned judgment that the High Court has not examined the explanation furnished by the dealer that they were under a bona fide belief that they were authorized to purchase oil seeds against Form C issued to them regularly by the department without any objection. It is manifest that the High Court proceeded to examine the case of the dealer on the premise that offence under Section 10(b) of the Act was an absolute offence. 16. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that the assessee therein was able to demonstrate before the Court that he had imported the goods bonafidely and did not file any false returns, his intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
