TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been filed before this Court. Briefly stated the case of the revisionist, which is the Food Corporation of India, is that certain consignment of wheat was brought from the State of Punjab by Rail in rakes to the godown of the Food Corporation of India in Faizabad, U.P. It was also admitted that the goods were not accompanied by Form-38. It is not disputed between the parties that during transit from outside U.P. to the godowns of the Food Corporation of India in Faizabad, U.P., the goods were neither seized nor intercepted by the respondent tax authorities. The entire consignment of wheat was sold by the Food Corporation of India and the tax on the same was also paid. It was at this stage that in 2010-11 the Taxing Authorities disco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revisionist and Sri Sanjieva Shankhdhar, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue and perused the documents on record. Sri Pradeep Agarwal has referred to the provisions of Section 54 (1) (14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and submits that Clause 14 sub-section 1 of Section 54 provides for imposition of penalty where the dealer or any other person imports or attempts to import or abets the import of any goods, in contravention of the provisions under section 50 or section 51 with a view or intention of evading payment of tax on sale of such goods. He therefore submits that the use of the word "intention" in Clause-14 is a mandatory requirement and a mandatory finding to be recorded by the Taxing Authority as to whether there wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore submits that by disposing of the consignment of wheat which was admittedly brought from the State of Punjab and was sold within the State of U.P. and was not accompanied by Form-38, the intention to evade tax was implicit in the act of the revisionist and the penalty levied by the Assessing Authority was absolutely correct as the power of the Assessing Authority flowed from the provisions of Section 54 (1) (14) of the VAT Act, 2008. Sri Sanjieva Shankhdhar further submits that import of such a huge consignment of wheat from Punjab and selling the same within the State of U.P. by the Food Corporation of India was nothing but an act of causing unprecedented economic loss to the State revenue therefore in such circumstances when the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....import of any goods with a view or intention of evading payment of tax on sale of such goods etc. and therefore the judgment in the case of R.S. Joshi (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case. Section 54 (1) (14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax, Act reads as follows: "54. Penalties in certain cases-(1) The assessing authority, if he is satisfied that any dealer or other person, as the case may, has committed the wrong described in column 2 of the table below, it may, after such inquiry, if any, as it may deem necessary and after giving dealer or person reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct that such dealer or person shall, in addition to the tax, if any, payable by him, pay by way of penalty, a sum as pro....