9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Authority it was found that the truck was carrying 1598 sq. ft. goods in excess then what was disclosed in the documents accompanying the vehicle. The Tribunal has also been persuaded by the fact that the assessee had voluntarily deposited the penalty amount without raising any objection with regard to the nature and quantity of goods. From perusal of order of the Tribunal, which is final fact finding authority, it is clear that the goods being carried by the revisionist from Rajasthan to Lucknow the documents had clearly disclosed that the goods were weighing more than what was actually disclosed by the assessee. The weight of the goods was found in excess than that was found declared in the documents accompanying the goods. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified and correct in determining the quantity of transporting goods in excess hypothetically based on suspicion, conjecture and surmises without any physical verification or measurement.? It is to be noted that the respondent has not explained how the area (in sq.Ft.) of granite is derived from the weight measurement unit (in Kgs) of Dharmkanta Parchi? (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified and correct in demanding proof from the revisionist and correct in demanding proof from the revisionist instead of the respondent regarding alleged excess quantity of transporting good in present case? In other words, onus to prove excess q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexure 14)? (vi) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified and correct in ignoring the law laid by this Hon ble Court in the case of CCT, U.P. Lko Vs. Bholu Timber Trade, [TTR No. 415 of 2014 , decided on 07.07.2014] the Hon ble Allahabad High Court has categorically mentioned that without physical verification it cannot be said that weight or quantity are in excess ? (vii) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified and correct in ignoring the law laid by this Hon ble Court in the case of Om Prakash Sharma Vs. CIT, U.P., Lko, 2009 UPTC 278 that howsoever strong suspicion can be but it cannot be placed as evidence ? (viii) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified and correct in ignoring the law laid by this Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st was given a show cause notice. Subsequently, seizure order was passed on 27.10.2015 by the officer of the Mobile Squad of the Commercial Tax Department, directing the revisionist to deposit 40% of the value of goods i.e. ₹ 48,909/-. Admittedly, the revisionist deposited the said amount and got the goods released without demur. 5. Subsequently, another show cause notice dated 26.09.2018, was issued by the Assessing Authority, which was duly replied by the revisionist on 27.08.2018 and consequently penalty order dated 15.11.2018, under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008 was passed imposing penalty of ₹ 48,909/-, which was equal to the security amount to be deposited by the revisionist. 6. The revisionist aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the assessee that the manner of detention of goods has not been given by the Assessing Authority and they have also considered the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Methew (MM) and Others dated 18.08.1978. It has also been stated that most of the points raised by the assessee were never pressed before the Assessing Authority. 9. The Tribunal has considered the argument of the Revenue that measurement of the goods being transported by the assessee have been done on the basis evidence and material and the Assessing Authority had imposed penalty order which was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 10. After considering the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferent then what has been declared, penalty proceedings can be drawn against the assessee. Considering all the facts the Tribunal has recorded that the details of goods being transported by the assessee, have not been disclosed correctly. 13. The revisionist on the other hand has argued only that the Assessing Authority has not taken correct procedure and not recorded the manner in which weighing had been done. A finding has been recorded by the Tribunal after considering all the material on record as well as the order passed by the Assessing Authority, no other material has been shown by the revisionist which can persuade this Court to come to different conclusion as recorded by the Tribunal. 14. In view of above, this Court do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
