1989 (1) TMI 317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... proceedings were thereafter not challenged by the assessee and the matter became final inter-parties. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under section 15-A(I)(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were initiated against the assessee and an opportunity afresh was afforded to the assessee. On a consideration of the explanation furnished by the assessee during the course of penalty proceedings the Sales Tax Officer recorded finding to the effect that on the basis of parchas recovered on the spot from the business premises of the assessee, it is clear that the assessee had been doing business outside the books and had also suppressed its turnover. He has also recorded a finding that the business was in fact carrie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gs they had again given an opportunity to the assessee to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed and after a consideration of the explanation of the assessee the said findings, which I have set out above, have been recorded by the Sales Tax Officer concerned. Therefore, in my opinion the ratio of the case in Satya Confectionary Works [1983] 53 STC 118 (All.); 1980 UPTC 356, is not available to the learned counsel for the assessee in the present case. The other case relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee is the case of Munna Lal Mahajan v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1982 UPTC 980. In this case the case of Satya Confectionary Works [1983] 53 STC 118 (All.); 1980 UPTC 356, was relied upon and since this case was remanded ba....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and the said order of the Sales Tax Officer has been confirmed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the impugned order. This authority, therefore, could be of no help to the assessee so far as the question of mens rea is concerned. On the other hand, I find that the learned Standing Counsel has placed strong reliance on the aforesaid decision in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Nand Mohan Madan Mohan [1984] 57 STC 35 (All.); 1984 UPTC 218, and has argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the present case that there was a concealment is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in revision. Agreeing with the aforesaid view, I find that so far as the present case is concerned, the Tribunal has itself on a consideration o....