1987 (2) TMI 494 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Importing Goods Penalty Upheld for Lack of Documents

The court upheld the penalty imposed under section 15-A(1)(o) read with section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for importing goods without necessary ... - Issues:1. Penalty imposed under section 15-A(1)(o) read with section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 for importing goods without necessary documents.Analysis:The judgment revolves around a revision against a penalty imposed for importing goods without proper documentation under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The goods were imported from outside the State without the required declaration form XXXI, leading to the penalty. The assessing officer, Assistant Commissioner, and Sales Tax Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the import was done with the intention to evade tax. The revision challenged the penalty imposition, arguing that the penalty should only be levied if the intention to evade tax is proven along with the absence of necessary documents. The argument also highlighted that although the trip sheet and way bills were shown at the check post, which contained the required details, the absence of form XXXI should not be considered adverse to the assessee.The judgment delves into the legal provisions of section 15-A(1)(o) and section 28-A of the Act, emphasizing the requirement for dealers to furnish specific documents when importing goods. It is noted that the absence of declaration form XXXI, cash memo, proper bills, and challans indicates a contravention of the Act's provisions. The court rejected the argument that showing the trip sheet and way bills at the check post should suffice, emphasizing that the specific documents mandated by the Act must be provided to comply with the law.The court analyzed the intention behind the contravention of section 28-A, stating that the penalty cannot be automatically levied solely based on the absence of documents. However, in this case, the assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause for not having the required documents. The court concluded that the absence of necessary documents, coupled with the unexplained failure to send form XXXI to the consignor, indicated a deliberate attempt to evade tax. The judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the revision and emphasizing that the penalty was justified based on the circumstances of the case.In conclusion, the judgment affirms the penalty imposed for importing goods without the necessary documents under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It underscores the importance of complying with the statutory requirements and highlights that the absence of specific documents, without a valid explanation, can lead to the inference of an intention to evade tax. The court's decision upholds the penalty, emphasizing the need for dealers to adhere to the prescribed documentation to avoid penalties under the Act.