TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (10) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to as "the Act"), is directed against an order dated July 21, 1988, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, whereby it dismissed the revisionist's Second Appeal No. 429 of 1988 for assessment year 1982-83 against the levy of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. The revisionist is a manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be established for levying penalty under section 15-A(1)(o). Before me also the learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in this case the dealer had acted bona fide and the purchases in question represented only a part of the purchases made by the dealer all of which were duly accounted for in the books of account. According to him since there was no dishonest intention on the part o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laki Das Vinod Kumar 1987 UPTC 154 in which it was held that contravention of the provisions of section 28-A is enough for imposition of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) and existence of mens rea was not necessary. In the present case as stated above, the dealer is a manufacturer of shoes and it seems that the goods in question were imported for being used as raw material. None of the authoriti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purchases was, to use the words of the honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211; [1972] 83 ITR 26, deliberately in defiance of law or the dealer was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of his obligation. In the case the honourable Supreme Court further observed that penalty will not be imposed merely because it ....