2022 (7) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2008") has been filed against judgment and order dated 27.04.2012, passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Second Appeal No. 273 of 2010, pertaining to assessment year 2008-09, whereby appeal of the revisionist has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is a registered company under the Act, 2008 and engages in the trading of medicines. In the course of business revisionist import the medicines from outside the State of U.P. On 03.09.2008, vehicle No. HR 04 N 0193 which was going from Zirakpur, Mohali to Lucknow was intercepted by Assistant Commissioner, Commercial....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der dated 27.04.2012. Thereafter revisionist approached the Tribunal by filing second appeal under Section 57 of the Act, 2008. 7. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty vide order dated 27.04.2012 which has been impugned in this Revision petition on the following Questions of Law- I. Whether in facts & circumstances of present case, judgment & Order dated 27.4.2012 passed by Ld. VAT Tribunal, Commercial Tax, Lucknow imposing/upholding Penalty upon Petitioner is perverse, illegal & erroneous in law & fact. II. Whether in facts & circumstances of present case, judgment & Order dated 27.4.2012 passed by Ld. VAT Tribunal, Commercial Tax, Lucknow imposing/upholding Penalty upon Petitioner is contrary to mandate of Section 54 of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar facts of the present case. In support of the contentions reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the this Court in the case of Commissioner of Commercial Tax vs Deepak trading Company Ghaziabad 2020(1) TMI 751, where after considering various judgments this court has held that there should be an intention to evade tax and merely because one column in Form - 38 is kept blank cannot be a reason in itself to levy penalty without a clear recording of satisfaction that the same is with the intention to evade tax. 10. Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, Standing counsel appearing for the revenue has supported the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal and stated that mandate of the provisions under Section 50 of the Act applies to all the goods ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d after considering all the relevant materials / evidences on record that there was an intention to evade payment of tax. The guilty mind is necessary to be established to impose penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008. If the last fact finding authority i.e. the tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there was no intention to evade payment of tax, same cannot be interfered with in revision under Section 58 of the Act, 2008 provided the finding is perverse or it is based on consideration of irrelevant material or non consideration of relevant material." 13. The aforesaid judgment has been relied upon by another bench of the Allahabad high court in the case of M/S Protein Impax Pvt Ltd vs The commissioner of commercial tax ....