2014 (9) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e are that a consignment of iron and steel (TMT Bar) was imported into the State of U.P. by M/s Sahu Traders, Mamhar Bazar Sarvatkhani Sant Ravidas Nagar, the revisionist. The total weight of the consignment was about 39.92 M.T., which was loaded in a Truck. The consignment was being brought from Raniganj and when it reached State of U.P., revisionist issued Tax Invoices No. 66 to 70 dated 27.2.2014, i.e. less than 9.0 M.T. in favour of five registered dealers in the State of U.P.. The vehicle carrying the consignment was seized by the Tax Officer of Rai Bareilly while it was being unloaded at the premises of the first trader namely M/s Lucky Traders, Unchahar, Raibareilly where the full consignment of 39.92 M.T. of iron and steal was found....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t was that the consignment was meant for five different dealers and, therefore, total weight of consignment would be less than 9.0 M.T.. However, by the impugned order dated 3.6.2014 the Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the revisionist and confirmed the order of seizure The submission of Sri Rahul Agarwasl, learned counsel for the revisionist is that in any case the total amount of tax under the U.P.VAT Act at the rate of 4% would come to only Rs. 60,800/- and under the Entry Tax Act applying the rate at 1% it would come to 15,200/-. He submits that no doubt Section 48(5) of the U.P.VAT Act, 2008 provides for imposition of penalty at 40% and Sub Section 7 of Section 48 of the Act provides for demand of a like amount by way of security b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lid. Sri Rahul Agarwal on the other hand has relied upon the following judgments of this Court:- 1.In the case of M/s Godawari Steels, 15 Navyug Market, Ghaziabad vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow reported in STI 2002 ADJ 436. 2.In the case of Subhash Singhal vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in 2004 NTN (Vol.25) 1097. 3.In the case of M/s Gulatikirana Stores, Bareilly vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax 2000 U.P.T.C. 1032. He submits that in all these cases the finding recorded by the authority was that the goods were not accompanied by necessary documents Form 21 and Form 31 and yet the Court took the view that in all three cases the penalty at the rate of 40% is disproportionate to the tax which would be ultimately payable.....