2006 (7) TMI 602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pointed out by the assessee that he was carrying the goods from Indore to Delhi which are being carried to Indore to Kashipur via Delhi. The assessing authority observed that there was a cutting in the invoice and the place of destination had been shown as New Delhi in place of Kashipur. It is also admitted to the department that the assessee was having a form No. 34 along with the goods. The assessing authority did not accept the version of the assessee and the assessing authority imposed a penalty under section 15(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 holding that the assessee had violated section 28-A. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the second appeal under section 9 of the Sales Tax Act, which was allowed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as an intention of the assessee to evade the sales tax. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contention. Perusal of the provisions of section 15(1)(o), section 28-A, rule 87 and rule 83, sub-clause (4) clearly reveals that if the goods are to be taken from outside the State of U.P. to some other State through the State of U.P. the assessee is required to produce form No. 34 at the time of inspection in U.P. It is also evident from the provisions of the above sections that if there is any violation of section 28-A, i.e., if he is not having form No. 34, the assessing authority in U.P. can impose the penalty under section 15A(1)(o) under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. This being the legal proposition the assessee had a valid form No.....