TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, in proceedings arising out of penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee under section 15A(1)(o) of the Act for the assessment year 1989-90. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories for sugar and cement plants and has a factory at Thiruvotiyur, Madras. It is registered as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee, in the course of its business, entered into a contract with the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., which has its registered office at 5 Meera Bai Marg, Lucknow for designing and preparing engineering layout and for procuring and supplying machineries and equipment of sugar plants in a scheme plan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at check-post detained the goods and demanded a security for Rs. 1,04,00,000. The assessee filed Writ Petition No. 3691 of 1990 before the Lucknow Bench at Allahabad High Court and the goods were released under the orders of the court upon furnishing a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000. Subsequently penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, by way of an order dated August 20, 1990 by which penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,04,000 was imposed upon the assessee. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal under section 9 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the first appellate authority quashed the imposition of the penalty by its order dated Septe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. v. State of U.P. [1990] 21 STI 348 (All) and Sumac Inter National Limited v. Sales Tax Officer [1990] 21 STI 336, was the order passed by Trade Tax Tribunal upholding the imposition of penalty justified? (ii) Whether during the penalty proceedings, wherein the consignee copy of the G.R. was produced clearly establishing that the G.R. was endorsed in favour of the applicant-company and subsequent sale was effected by transfer of document of title (G.R.) by endorsing the same in the name of U.P. State Sugar Corporation, and hence, in view of section 6(2) read with section 3(b), Explanation I of the Central Sales Tax Act it was a second inter-State sale as contemplated under section 6(2) of the Central Act, the order of the Trade Tax Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into consideration the two aforesaid decisions and has failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, in which admittedly the goods in question were being imported within the State of U.P. at the instance of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., which have provided form XXXI for importing goods and the goods as described in form XXXI matched exactly with goods which had moved and there were no discrepancies whatsoever between the goods detailed in form XXXI and the goods which were apprehended at the check-post, Saharanpur and therefore it could not be said that any of the goods were being moved by escaping any tax. Learned counsel for the assessee has further argued that it was nowhere established in the facts and c....