Court sets aside penalty order, emphasizes evidence review for interstate sale determination.

The court allowed the revision, set aside the Tribunal's order penalizing the truck owner under section 15-A (1) (q) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for non-surrender of Form 34 at the exit check post, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. The court emphasized the need to consider the evidence presented by the applicant to determine if the goods had crossed the State of U.P., highlighting the importance of examining whether the goods were sold within the State in accordance with Section 28-B of the Act.

---

---

Issues:
Penalty under section 15-A (1) (q) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for non-surrender of Form 34 at the exit check post.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the Tribunal's order relating to the assessment year 1992-93. The applicant, the owner of a truck, was penalized under section 15-A (1) (q) of the Act as the driver failed to surrender Form 34 at the exit check post. The applicant argued that Section 28-B of the Act raises a rebuttal presumption, which can be overcome by providing evidence that the goods had crossed the State of U.P. and were delivered to the consignee. Various documents were submitted as evidence, including acknowledgments from the consignee, receipts of tax payments, and toll tax receipts. The assessing authority upheld the penalty, which was also confirmed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal.

Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the court found merit in the applicant's contentions. It was observed that the necessary evidence proving the goods had crossed the State of U.P. and reached the consignee was not considered by the Tribunal. The court referred to Section 28-B of the Act, which establishes a rebuttal presumption in cases of goods in transit. The court cited a previous judgment where it was held that this provision is aimed at preventing tax evasion and that the presumption can be rebutted by proving that the goods had not been sold within the State. Since the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence provided by the applicant, the court deemed the Tribunal's order as illegal and unsustainable.

Consequently, the court allowed the revision, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to consider the evidence presented by the applicant in determining whether the goods had indeed crossed the State of U.P. The court highlighted the importance of examining the evidence to establish whether the goods were sold within the State or not, in line with the provisions of Section 28-B of the Act.

---