TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 13.02.2015 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Division-I, Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 196 of 2014 for the assessment year 2011-12 arising out of penalty proceedings initiated under section 54(1)(14) of the UP VAT Act, in which following questions of law have been framed:- "(i) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct uphold the penalty u/s 54(1)(14) of UPVAT Act on the ground that books of accounts was not produced whereas the requirement of documents to be carried during transit of goods u/s 50(4) of the Act is only to carry proper and genuine documents which has not been disbelieved? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct not to consider that filing of all the columns of form 38....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said provision was amended on 26.05.2014 and the words were being substituted as "carry duly filled such declarations or documents." He further submits that at the time of interception and seizure of goods, no such provision was there. For imposing the penalty, the necessary ingredient is to hold whether there was any intention to evade payment of tax. In the case in hand, all the documents were there and the Department was well aware after the detention that the goods have been imported and there cannot be any intention to evade payment of tax. He prays for allowing the revision. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that there was contravention on the part of the dealer while impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (41) 189 has held as under:- "6. Section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was interpreted in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., Ghaziabad and ors vs. State of UP and ors 1983 U.P.T.C. 198 as follows:- "23. The provision contained in Section 28-A as it stands after enactment of U.P. Act No. 33 of 1979 are materially different. It cannot be said that there is any assumption underlying therein that the goods to which the provision of Sectioin 28-A applies has actually been sold inside the State and the section does not authorise the sales tax authorities either to seize the said goods or to penalise the importer thereof on any such assumption. Its present basis is the attempt to evade tax. The power to detain the goods and levy penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t been acting inconsonance with the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act......" 7. The judgment in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. (supra) has held the field for more than two decades, and that the intention to evade the tax has been found to be necessary ingredient before imposing the penalty under the Act, on the dealer or any other person. 8. In Multitex Filtration Engineering Ltd. (supra) a learned Single Judge noticed the decision in M/s K.M.G.S. Road Signs Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and held as follows:- "22. In the case of M/s KMGS Road Signs Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P., Lucknow (supra) this Court has upheld the seizure of the goods on the ground that column Nos. 2, 3 and 6 of the declar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Jain Shudh Vanaspati (supra) is applicable to the interpretation of Section 50 read with Section 50 (4). Thus, for the detention/seizure of the goods under Section 50 read with Section 50 (4) and 50(5), a case of an attempt to evade the tax and an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under this Act has to be made out as a condition precedent. In this view of the matter the observation of the learned Single Judge in the case of M/s KMGS Road Signs Pvt. Ltd. is not correct in entirely and is to be read in the light of the observation made above." 9. Shri S.D. Singh would submit that in para 26 of the judgment in Multitex Filtration Engineering L....