TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (8) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quash the judgment and order of the Tribunal and of the order dated January 18, 1993, passed by the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, Saharanpur imposing penalty on the petitioner. I have heard Sri R.K. Agarwal, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Sri R.D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, and perused the material brought on record. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" which includes the U.P. Trade Tax Act) and it is a recognised contractor for supply of medicines to Government Ayurvedic Hospital and does not sell any medicines in the open market. For the assessment year 1991-92 the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Med....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x, was not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner and imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 55,500 under section 13-A of the Act. In the appeals the petitioner did not succeed and thereafter having no legal remedy under the Act, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that the petitioner sent the consignments of the medicines on May 30, 1992 to the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Allahabad, in compliance with the order of supply dated March 27, 1992 and March 30, 1992 pertaining to the financial year 1991-92. As such the order of imposition of penalty under section 13-A(4) of the Act is wholly illegal and liable to be quashed. The facts that the petitioner i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts that the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer did not have the purchasing power of more than Rs. 5,000. It is very surprising as to how it could not be understood by the learned Tribunal which remarked that it was not understandable to prepare 75 bills for the two consignments of medicines. The consignments were accompanied by form 3-13 and were duly recorded in the account books of the petitioners. The stock book of the petitioner entirely indicated the debit of the medicines against the orders received in the month of March, 1992. The reasoning of the sales tax authorities to the effect that if the supplies of the medicines were made in the month of May, the stock book should have reflected the supplies of the medicines in the month....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the transaction made by the petitioner as a registered dealer. The findings to the contrary recorded by the assessing authority and the Tribunal are therefore not sustained on the basis of evidence. Section 13-A(4) of the Act provides for imposition of penalty only when (i) that the transaction is not traceable to a bona fide dealer and the goods are not properly recorded in the account books or the documents accompanying the consignment, Admittedly the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act and is only a Government supplier and does not sell the medicines in the open market. The medicines have been supplied to the Government department after receiving proper orders of supplies and the payments have been made by the Governm....