TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Hon'ble Court in CTT Vs. Tien Yuan India (P) Ltd. 1998 UPTC 2250, Rapti Commission Agency Vs. CTT 1999 UPTC 969. S.K. Enterprises Vs. CTT 2008 UPTC 754, Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law to confirm the imposition of penalty although the goods were traceable to bonafide dealer and entered in books of accounts." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that he is a registered dealer carrying on the business of mentha oil w.e.f. 30th April, 2007 at Branch Office in Masauli, District Barabanki. On 23.8.2007 the revisionist had purchased mentha oil from three farmers and the printed purchase vouchers containing their names and addresses were available with the goods. The mentha oil was being transported to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ki, which was also rejected after reiterating the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which too has been rejected by means of the order impugned herein. 6. The Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority only on the ground that the vehicle did not carry any goods, bill vouchers, builty and challan etc. and after issuing notice only purchase vouchers were produced which were not found reliable. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that seizure was upheld by the Tribunal on the ground as provided under law and rules, specifically, in Rule 83 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r determination is as to whether the goods were being carried with valid documents as prescribed under the Trade Tax Act and if not then whether the seizure/penalty proceedings are valid in the present set of circumstances or not ? 10. A perusal of Rule 83 (4) (a) gives the details of the documents which are mandatory during transportation of goods. In the present case undoubtedly it has nowhere been challenged that the petitioner was not carrying mentha oil. It has been submitted that he had purchased the said oil from three farmers from Fatehpur. To substantiate the said transaction three purchase vouchers were produced before the authorities which provides the quantum of the oil, name and address of seller and the date of sale. No othe....