TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to as "the Tribunal"), thereby dismissing the second appeal of the revisionist and up holding the penalty imposed upon the revisionist under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2008"). Both the revisions pertain to assessment year 2010-11. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist/assessee is duly registered under the Act, 2008 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. With regard to the present controversy, it is submitted that the revisionist received purchase order from a firm named M/s Pancham Realcon Pvt. Ltd., A/2, Civil Lines, Tashkand Marg, Allahabad for purchase of Iron Rods (Saria) of various specifications vide ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a different location from the route from Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) to Lucknow (U.P.) and therefore it was held that the goods were being transported with intention to evade tax and hence penalty was imposed on the revisionist. 5. The revisionist thereafter preferred first appeal before the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeals), Commercial Tax, Lucknow. The first appeal was dismissed by means of order dated 12.08.2011. While rejecting the first appeal the First Appellate Authority has recorded that the truck carrying the goods was detained and inspected at 10 AM on 03.02.2011, no documents were being carried by the driver of the vehicle. The relevant papers were produced only after 12 hours. It was further found that the revisionist w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Tribunal has recorded that when the vehicle transporting the said goods was detained, no document was produced. It is only after detention memo was issued by the Officer of the Mobile Squad, Form-38, bill, bilty and other documents were produced that too after 12 hours, which gave a reasonable ground for apprehension and doubt that the said documents have been prepared subsequently. The reason given by the revisionist that the said documents were being carried by their representative who had not accompanied the truck and therefore the said papers could not be produced at the time of inspection. The Tribunal was not satisfied with the reply given by the revisionist in this regard. The other reason recorded by the Tribunal for up holdin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 8. On the basis of above reasons, the Tribunal has held that in exercise of powers under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008, penalty imposed on the revisionist was just, proper and reasonable. The documents produced by the revisionist were not relied upon by the Tribunal on the ground that the same have been prepared as an after thought. 9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has supported the orders passed by the Assessing Authority, First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal and submitted that the goods were being transported from Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) to Lucknow (U.P.). The vehicle was detained at Allahabad, at a place which was not on the pre scheduled route. On detention of the said vehicle, the driver was found not be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... given cogent reasons for not accepting the version of the revisionist. 12. This Court has also considered the submissions made by the revisionist. No reason was forthcoming from the counsel for the revisionist as to why the relevant documents were not amended in case it was intention of the revisionist to transport the goods from Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) to Allahabad (U.P.). The vehicle was not carrying any document nor were the same produced before the Mobile Squad when the vehicle was intercepted, abundantly gave rise to apprehension that there was an attempt to evade tax. The apprehension of the taxing authorities was confirmed after going through the documents produced by the revisionist which pertain to transportation of goods from J....