TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order of the Tribunal is wholly erroneous inasmuch as the total evaded purchase/import by repeated use of 12 Form-38 was only about Rs. 15 Crores but against the said figure evaded turnover about Rs. 2800 crores has been fixed which is highly arbitrarily and without any evidence on record. He submits that the demand has no legs to stand. The financial position of the applicant's company is tight and the company is not in a position to deposit the un-stayed amount of disputed tax. Under the circumstances, he submits that 100% amount of disputed tax should have been stayed by the Tribunal. He submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal is erroneous, and therefore, deserves to be set aside, in v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment, the case was taken out of self assessment scheme. A notice for assessment under Section 28(2) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as well as under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ( hereinafter referred to as the ' Central Act') were separately issued to the applicants. The applicants appeared and submitted details. As per details submitted, the applicant imported goods from out side the country of Rs. 20,57,80,51,344.00. Goods wroth Rs. 3,14,38,15,927/- were received by sock transfer. Thus total receipt of goods by import and stock transfer was disclosed at Rs. 23,72,18,67,271/-. U.P. sale was disclosed at Rs. 4,43,96,39,328/- and central sales includin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 crore. Thus, the assessing authority found that merely on the basis of use of 2110 Form-38 goods worth of Rs. 3418.93 crores have been imported. Thus import was found suppressed by the applicant. 7. In his reply dated 18th July, 2014 to the show cause notice, the applicant disclosed import of goods worth Rs. 4844.98 crores by using 3415 Form-38. The assessing authority thus found that the figures of import disclosed by the applicant at Rs. 2372.19 crores is incorrect as according to their own disclosure of facts before the Additional Commissioner import of Rs. 3418.93 was admitted by use 2110 Form-38 and subsequently, in reply dated 18th July, 2014 by use of 3415 Form-38 the import was disclosed at R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty on the stay application of the applicant, Second Appeal No. 443/2014 (U.P.) and No. 442/2014 (Central) were filed before the Member Commercial Tax Tribunal, Noida Bench-I, Noida which was partly allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 16th September, 2014. The Tribunal modified the order passed by the first Appellate Authority and granted stay of the disputed amount to the extent of 80%. 11. Still feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of stay granted by the Tribunal, the applicants have filed these two revisions, under Section 58 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. 12. Prima facie, I find that the assessing authority has given detail reasons based on evidences on record including own documents of the applicant, with regard to the evaded pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the prima facie case and the fact that no documentary evidences of financial hardship are available on record of these revisions, I do not find any error in the impugned orders of the Tribunal. 14. Applying on the facts of the present case the principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Benara Valves Ltd. & Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and another, (2006) 13 SCC 347, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal, (1985) 1 SCC 260 and Siliguri Municipality and others Vs. Amalendu Das & Others, (1984) 2 SCC 436, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 15. The judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Gupta ( supra) ....