2017 (7) TMI 1215 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court overturns Tribunal's decision, finding penalty unwarranted under U.P. Trade Tax Act

M/s Preet Rubber Industries Versus Commissioner, U.P. Trade Tax, Lucknow

The High Court upheld the revisionist's appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order that had overturned the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The ... Penalty u/s 13A(4) of U.P. Trade Tax Act - non filing of Application under Section 13A(6) of the Act - Held that:- The tribunal has allowed the appeal without giving any finding regarding the over valuation of the seized goods and also in respect of the entries made in the books of account - Having due regard to the quantum of penalty imposed, it would not be in the interest to refer the matter before the Tribunal for the reason that the learned Standing Counsel has not disputed that the goods were duly reflected in the books of account and in corresponding bills - revision allowed. Issues:1. Legality of confirming penalty order under Section 13A(4) of U.P. Trade Tax Act.2. Legality of upholding penalty order based on non-filing of Application under Section 13A(6) of the Act or Appeal against seizure order.Analysis:1. The revisionist, engaged in manufacturing and sale of Agricultural Implements, dispatched 14 Rolls of Rubber Beltings to a buyer with a challan that had certain irregularities. This led to seizure proceedings and imposition of penalty under Section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The dealer submitted explanations and documents, but the Assessing Authority rejected them. The appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was successful, noting that the transaction was reflected in the books of account and the stamping on the challan was permissible as per the law in 1996-97.2. The Tribunal, however, set aside the order on the grounds of overwriting and stamping not being as per law, and the dealer not filing an appeal but depositing the security amount. The Tribunal did not address the valuation of seized goods or entries in the books of account. The Standing Counsel acknowledged that the Tribunal's decision was based on conjectures and did not consider the factual findings of the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, it was suggested that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.3. Despite the suggestion for remand, considering the penalty imposed and the goods being properly reflected in the books of account and bills, the High Court decided not to refer the matter back to the Tribunal. The Court noted that the First Appellate Authority had appropriately considered the dealer's explanation and found the goods were accounted for correctly. Additionally, the requirement for printing numbers on the challan by a printing press was introduced later, not applicable to the case in question. Consequently, the revision was allowed, and the Tribunal's order from November 2005 was set aside.