TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll as the revenue have been rejected and the Tribunal had up held imposition of penalty as modified by the First Appellate Authority. This revision relates to assessment year 2005-06. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the revisionist is a partnership form engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of textiles and is registered under Section 8-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1948") as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. The revisionist has given order for supply of the machine for cloth procesing to M/s Disha Enterprises Delhi and therefore, the aforesaid machine was purchased by M/s Disha Enterprises Delhi from M/s Romex Machine, TTC Area Thaney, Mumbai, Maharashtra. The said machine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 99,223/- by means of order dated 6th March, 2009. 7. Against the order of the First Appellate Authority, the revisionist as well as the revenue preferred second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal rejected both the appeals. Hence this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently urged that it was only due to inadvertence that the driver of the vehicle was not carrying the relevant documents and the same were duly produced before the assessing authority and therefore, there was no intention on the part of the revisionist to evade tax, and therefore, penalty under Section 15A of the Act, 1948, could not have been imposed. It has further been submitted on behalf ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... subsequently using he same for importing machines on subsequent occasion, and therefore, in exercise of power under Section 15A of the Act, 1948, penalty was imposed. 13. The revisionist has submitted that he had filed a detailed explanation indicating that the said transaction was not taxable and it is only due to human error that the driver was not carrying the relevant documents and subsequently the declaration Form-31 and other relevant documents were produced before the assessing authority at the very first instance. Thus, there was no intention to evade tax. 14. The First Appellate Authority accepted the submissions of the revisionist and only on this score reduced the penalty amount. Being aggrieved by the findings recorded by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relying on any document which may have given rise of any occasion for the assessing authority to initiate such proceedings,but looking into the fact that the revisionist at the very first instance produced the entire documents before the assessing authority, indicates that the revisionist fulfilled all the conditions as prescribed under the Act, 1948 and even then penalty has been imposed by the assessing authority. 18. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. S/S Haring India Limited, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, 1988 UPTC 1343, wherein the Court in para 8 of the judgment has observed as under : "8. The provisions of Section 28-A (6) as it stood at the mate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions make it absolutely clear that the power to seize and detain the goods under subsection (6) of Section 28-A cannot be exercised merely because the goods, when they reach the check post, were not accompanied by the declaration form contemplated by Section 28-A(1). The real occasion to detain the goods under sub- Section (6) arises only if the goods are not accompanied by the requisite documents and thee is material before the Check Post Officer on which he can reasonably record a satisfaction that the person importing the goods was attempting to evade assessment or payment of sales tax due or likely to be due." 19. The revisionist has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Uttrakhand High Court in the case of ....