TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The revision was admitted on the following questions of law: "(i) Whether show cause notice having been issued; goods having been seized and penalty having been first imposed solely on the seller (Ex-U.P. dealer) vide order dated 08.11.2013 and no liability having been fixed on the assessee in those proceedings, there survived any jurisdiction to initiate or impose penalty on the assessee there after under Section 54(1) (14) of U.P. VAT Act, 2008? (ii) Whether in any case security amount having been deposited by the seller for release of the goods, any penalty order could have been passed against the assessee/purchaser when at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Tribunal. Hence the present revision. 5. In such facts, learned counsel for the assessee submits, the penalty order could have been passed only once. Relying on Section 48(5) of the Act, it has been submitted that the Act contemplates 'an order' to be passed imposing penalty and, therefore, there could not arise any occasion to pass two orders for penalty arising from the same transaction. Once the Assessing Officer had chosen to impose penalty on the ex-U.P. seller M/s. Suresh & Company, the power to impose penalty stood exhausted and there survived no jurisdiction to impose any further penalty on the present assessee. 6. Second, it has been submitted, in any case, it being undisputed that the seizure of goods was made at t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty on the assessee who was the intended purchaser. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it has to be accepted that the provisions of Section 48 may not be of any relevance for the purpose of decision of this case, inasmuch as the validity of the penalty has to be tested on the language of Section 54(1)(5) with respect to transactions of import of goods into the State, with which Section 48 of the Act have not concern. 10. For ready reference, Section 54(1)(5) is quoted below: "54. Penalty in certain cases- (1) The assessing authority, if he is satisfied that any dealer or other person, as the case may be, has committed the wrong described in column-(2)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rts or attempts to import or abets to import any goods in contravention of Section 50, 51 of the Act, with a view to evade payment of tax. 12. Thus, learned Standing Counsel is completely right in contending that the penalty to be imposed under Section 54(1) (5) may not be confined to one against a registered dealer only or against one person only but it allows the revenue authorities ample discretion to impose penalty on each of the persons who may be found guilty of having infringed that provision of law. However, such penalties may arise only after the satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer 13. For a satisfaction to arise, there must come into existence some proceeding wherein such satisfaction may be recorded. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....late imposition of a second or a subsequent penalty for the same transaction, to allow the Assessing Officer to now reach satisfaction against the present assessee (while allowing the sole satisfaction reached against the ex-U.P. selling dealer to stand), would be to allow him to self-contradict his own satisfaction recorded in the order dated 08.11.2013. 17. It may have been open to the Assessing Officer to rope in the present assessee in the first penalty proceedings while those proceedings were pending. However, once the Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction of infringement having been made with respect to the present transaction, solely by the selling dealer, it did not survive on him to record a contrary or another satisfactio....