2020 (8) TMI 783

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aving established its factory for the manufacture of biscuits under the name of "Raja Biscuit Industries Pvt. Ltd." in the State of Uttarakhand. The factory was established in August, 2006. Huge investment was made on the factory. The assessee registered itself under the VAT and Central Sales Tax Act. Under the broad head, as mentioned under the registration certificate for manufacturing biscuits and for the said purpose got registered under the Central Sales Tax Act as well as the VAT Act in the State of Uttarakhand. 2. With reference to the Assessment Year 2006-2007, a notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax on 25.04.2007 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed for vio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh vs. Sanjiv Fabrics and connected matter reported in (2010) 9 SCC 630. 5. On the other hand, Shri Mohit Maulekhi, learned counsel appearing for the department, defends the same. He contends that the First Appellate Authority committed an error in reducing the amount of penalty; that the goods which were imported without being covered under form-C definitely attract the penalty; and that it cannot be said that it was a bona fide belief of the assessee with regard to the same. Hence, he pleads that the order be set-aside by enhancing the penalty. 6. Heard learned counsels. 7. The show cause notice issued by the department indicated various items that did not form part of form-C. A reply was furn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....les, in our considered view, was not appropriate. Therefore, non consideration of the request of the assessee to completely waive the penalty in our considered view is inappropriate. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh vs. Sanjiv Fabrics and connected matter, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 630, held at para 36 as under: 36. In view of the above, we are of he considered opinion that the use of the expression "falsely represents" is indicative of the fact that the offence under Section 10(b) of the Act comes into existence only where a dealer acts deliberately in defiance of law or is guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct. Therefore, in proceedings for levy of penalty ....