2017 (11) TMI 264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation was that two consignment of paper which entered the State of U.P. on 20 and 23 July 1992, although accompanied with the appropriate declarations as envisaged under Section 28B, the requisite forms were not surrendered at the exit check post. It is not disputed that the transportation of the goods in question originated in the State of Maharashtra and were ultimately bound for New Delhi. Since the declaration forms were not surrendered at the exit check post, the respondents took the position that the goods would be presumed to have been sold within the State. It is on this basis that penalty has been levied upon the assessee. As this Court reads the order of the assessing authority as well as that of the Tribunal it is apparent tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evidence on the fact presumed, and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed the purpose of presumption is over. Then the evidence will determine the true nature of the fact to be established. The rules of presumption are deduced from enlightened human knowledge and experience and are drawn from the connection, relation and coincidence of facts, and circumstances. 17. We are of the view that the words contained in Section 28-B of the Act only require the authorities concerned to raise a rebuttable presumption, that the goods must have been sold in the State if the transit pass is not handed over to the officer at the check-post or the barrier near the place of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tal presumption raised by the provision was over. It was then for the respondents to establish that the goods had in fact not exited the State of U.P. Learned counsel for the revisionist has rightly placed reliance upon the following two decisions in which the scope of the power vested in the respondents to levy a penalty under Section 15A(1)(q) was noticed and the following pertinent observations made: 1. Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow Vs. Ms. Gurjeet Singh S/o Sri Atma Singh, Agra 2003 NTN (Vol. 22)-270 "6. Having heard the submission, I find that the Tribuanl has recorded categorical finding of fact on the relevant material available on record that the goods in question had been delivered to the purchaser at ....