Importer status under trade tax law depends on actual receipt or import intention; mistaken Form 31 filing does not create liability.

A person who is neither the importer nor a recipient of goods on arrival into the State cannot be treated as bound by the endorsement requirement on Form 31 under section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The obligation applies to one who intends to bring, import or otherwise receive the goods, including consignments sent by rail, river, air or post. Where the Tribunal found that the revisionist had no connection with the goods when they reached Agra and the import was already complete, a mistaken furnishing of Form 31 did not create importer status. On that basis, penalty for non-endorsement under section 15-A(1)(o) was unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisionist could be treated as an importer or a person otherwise receiving the goods into the State so as to attract the obligation to obtain endorsement on Form 31 under section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, and whether penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) was leviable for non-endorsement.

Analysis: The goods had been sent by dealers from outside the State to named consignees at Agra and the Tribunal itself found that the revisionist was not the purchaser or consignee and had no connection with the goods when they arrived at the post office at Agra. The statutory obligation under section 28-A(1) applies to a person who intends to bring, import or otherwise receive goods into the State, and section 28-A(3) governs the case where such goods are consigned by rail, river, air or post. On the facts accepted, the import into the State was complete before the revisionist came into the picture. Merely furnishing Form 31 could not, by itself, convert a person who was not the importer into one, and a mistaken or misconceived furnishing of the form did not create the statutory character of importer. As the revisionist was not the person on whom the obligation fell, non-endorsement of Form 31 did not constitute a breach attracting penalty.

Conclusion: The revisionist was not an importer within the meaning of section 28-A and was not liable to comply with the endorsement requirement; the penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) was therefore unsustainable and is set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition succeeds, the Tribunal's order is modified, and the penalty is quashed in full with costs to the revisionist.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who is not the importer and had no intention to bring, import, or receive goods into the State cannot be fastened with the statutory duty of endorsed declaration merely because he furnished Form 31 by mistake or misconception.

---