2018 (12) TMI 1232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 15A(1)(o), in the absence of any finding that there was any intention to evade the payment of tax." 4. Admittedly, the assessee is a manufacturer of toiletries. Facts giving rise to the present proceedings are: it had been disclosed that the assessee has a depot at Haryana from where it had dispatched certain goods to it's depot at Ghaziabad inside the State of U.P. The goods so dispatched were admittedly accompanied with the stock transfer invoice; lorry receipt and; Form D-3 being the road permit issued under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation form being Form- 31 was not accompanied with such goods, and that it was submitted with delay. Therefore, it has been inferred that the contravention of Section 28A of the Act was made out. Therefore, the penalty has been affirmed, though the quantum of penalty has been reduced by the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the authorities have acted in ignorance of all disputed facts being that the assessee had at the very beginning disclosed it's intent of bringing the goods into the Stae of U.P. by way of stock transfer, which stood established by the stock transfer invoice, lorry receipt as also the Form D-3 issued under the Haryana Act. He would submit that in face of road permit issued under Haryana Act,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Act, it's non production amounted to a contravention of those provisions and, therefore, the penalty was wholly justified. Since, it is not disputed to the assessee that it did not produce the Form-31, it cannot be heard to say there was no contravention of Section 28A of the Act. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen there was no evidence led by the revenue to establish that non-production of Form-31 at the first instance was a conscious act by the assessee. The further evidence that had been led by the assessee to establish that the transaction was one of stock transfer and was duly disclosed, merited acceptance. The fact that the assessee had filled up Form D-3 under the Haryana Act disclosing the transpo....