9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in registration certificate cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be connected with the items purchased by the revisionist, i.e., valves, regulator, PP caps, Aluminum Seal, etc. The impugned judgements orders passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal in these revisions do not require any interference by this Court as there is no infirmity in the same. Both the revisions are dismissed. - Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J. For the Revisionist : Pradeep Agrawal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C, Amar Mani Tiwari ORDER HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Shri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Sanjay Sareen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. 2. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 138 of 2013 relates to the Assessment Year 2007-08 and Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 137 of 2013 relates to the Assessment Year 2004-05. Since the issues involved in these revisions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. 3. The present revisions have been filed agianst a common order passed by the Commercial Tax Trabunal, Lucknow in Second Appeal Nos. 308 of 2012 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the revisionist obtained a registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) where the goods are being mentioned to be purchased on concession rate. The word container is being mentioned in the certificate. In the normal course of business, the revisionist purchased valves, regulator, PP caps, Aluminum Seal, blue dye, etc. While passing the penalty order under section 10-A of the Act for the assessment year 2004-05, it has been observed that the above goods to the tune of Rs. 3,88,42,792/- and while passing the order under section 10-A of the Act for the assessment year 2007-08, total purchase of above goods was shown to the tune of Rs. 1,84,38591/- and accordingly, penalty was imposed @ 15%, which comes to Rs. 58,26,419/- for the assessment year 2004-05 and Rs. 2765789/- for the assessment year 2007-08, respectively, against which first appeals were preferred, which were dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2012, against which second appeals were preferred, which were dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.04.2013. Hence, the present revisions. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since in the registration ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he mens rea. He further submits that the said finding of fact has not been assailed by the revisionist in appeals and therefore, no relief can be granted even in pursuance of the judgement of the Apex Court in M/s Sanjeev Fabrics (supra). He further submits that the case of M/s Sanjeev Fabrics (supra) is not applicable to the revisionist herein as the revisionist has issued Form C wrongly and made false representation while purchasing the items in question, which were not covered by the certificate of registration. He prays for dismissal of the revision. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. The Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 137/2013 is taken as leading case for deciding the issue in hand. 9. It is admitted between the parties that the revisionist is being granted registration under sections 7(1)/7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the revision. The items required for resale have been mentioned in column Ka where the word container has been mentioned. It is also admitted between the parties that the revisionist is engaged in selling of LPG gas. LPG gas is fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed on 28.12.2011; wherein, a categorical finding of fact has been recorded that the revisionist has failed to bring on record any material to justify the items in question as covered under the word container . The relevant part of the penalty order is quoted herein-below:- 13. The record further reveals that the said finding of fact in the penalty order has not been assailed in the grounds of appeal taken by the revisionist, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 11 to the revision, which runs from pages 51 to 66. Once the said finding of fact which was recorded against the revisionist that he has failed to prove otherwise, the first appellate authority by the order dated 26.05.2012 dismissed the first appeal, against which second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned order has also dismissed the second appeal. 14. The judgement of this Court in Jalavid Udyog Kanpur (supra) relief upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist will be of no help to him as the matter was remanded and the opportunity was given to the revisionist therein, but could not establish the same as recorded in the penalty order as ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied for registration of 'cotton' and had claimed exemption on 'cotton' waste' and he was under bona fide belief that 'cotton' includes 'cotton waste' and he had purchased the goods in question and furnished Form-C for the said goods and in the aforesaid circumstances it was canvassed that there was no mens rea which is essential ingredient prior to levying penalty under Section 10 of the Act. 21. In the present case, the revisionist had never applied for registration of Railway Siding, Locomotives and Transmitters and in absence of registration of such goods Form-C was issued to him for purchase of the said items and it could not be demonstrated by the revisionist that he had done this under any bona fide belief or under mistake of fact. Apart from the above, clearly Railway Siding, Locomotives and Transmitters cannot be related to any other goods or class of goods for which registration had already been obtained by the revisionist, so as to show that he was under some bona fide belief that the said goods are included in the class of goods for which Registration Certificate had already been issued. In absence of any such bona fide belief, or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
