TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment year 2003-04 arising out of penalty proceedings under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as, "the Act". With the consent of the parties, the revision is being decided finally at the admission stage itself without calling for any counter-affidavit and without summoning the record. Brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit accompanying the stay application filed in the revision are that the applicant is a Government of India undertaking and is controlled by Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India. The applicant is carrying on the business of petroleum products throughout India. The applicant does not have any refinery in U.P., and it purchases petroleum product mostly from Mathura refinery ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e own railway siding of the applicant-company and the goods are not transported from any railway station as contemplated under section 28A(3)(b) of the Act. The assessing authority without properly appreciating the reply submitted by the applicant to the show-cause notice passed an order on March 28, 2008 imposing penalty of Rs. 242.13 crore upon the applicant for the assessment year 2003-04 although the assessing authority in its order dated March 28, 2008 accepted that the applicant filed 12 forms XXXI in respect of the monthly railway receipts through railway rake and the assessing authority did not record any finding that there was any intention on the part of the applicant to evade payment of tax. Being aggrieved from the order of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recovery of 70 per cent of the disputed amount of penalty was stayed. Aggrieved from the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) dated January 7, 2009, the applicant filed a second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, which has been partly allowed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal by order dated January 12, 2009 by which the recovery of the amount awarded as penalty has been stayed subject to the applicant depositing five per cent of the disputed amount of penalty which comes to about Rs. 12,10,62,310. Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the Commercial Tax Tribunal has clearly erred in law in insisting upon the deposit of five per cent of the disputed amount of penalty as a con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent and the books of account of the dealer are accepted at the time of assessment, no inference can be drawn that there was any attempt to evade tax and no penalty under section 28A of the Act can be imposed merely on the ground that the goods were imported without form XXXI. Sri Sanjeev Shankhdhar learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. Without disputing the facts of the case, Sri Shankhdhar very fairly submitted that the principle of law laid down in the cases of this court as well as the apex court cited on behalf of the applicant applies with full force in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I have considered the ....