TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade Tax Act, 1948 for the transactions made in the year 1994-95. The facts of the case are that the assessee carries on the business of manufacture and sale of Tulsi Brand of perfumed tobacco, which is commonly known as "gutka". The assessee had established its unit in the year 1990 and had been granted an eligibility certificate for a period of six years, starting with effect from March 6, 1990. According to the facts stated by the assessee, the assessee was importing 9 cartons of perfumery compound from Bombay along with a bill dated December 3, 1994 and the same was being transported from Bombay to Noida. This item was used as a raw material. The said consignment of perfumery was intercepted by the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad on Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Being aggrieved by this order dated March 13, 1996, the Department went in appeal and the appeal of the Department has been allowed ultimately by the Tribunal, which has come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to establish a case of mens rea in order that a penalty may be imposed upon the assessee under section 15A(1)(o) for violation of the provisions of section 28A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The learned counsel for the assessee has made a threefold argument. First argument of the learned counsel for the assessee is that the record of the case and the contentions of the assessee do not indicate in any manner that there was any intention on the part of the assessee to escape any tax for reasons that the goods which were being b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to evade any tax by the assessee while importing goods. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the honourable apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Oriental Carbon Ltd., Ghaziabad as reported in [1997] 10 NTN 105 (SC) and a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Rama Pulses v. State of U.P. as reported in [2009] 41 NTN 189, wherein this court has held that the intention to evade payment of tax is sine qua non for levy of penalty and has held that the law laid down in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. [1983] 53 STC 54 (All), is still good law to the extent that before the imposition of penalty the authority must give to the assessee a notice under the provisions of the Act ....