2024 (1) TMI 1113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e tribunal has dismissed the Second Appeal No.263 of 2013 preferred by the Revisionist in respect of the Assessment Year 2009-10 and upheld the penalty U/s 54(1) (14) of the U.P. VAT Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is a registered dealer and having its factory at Sonipat, Haryana from where, in the normal course of business, the goods were being imported after due compliance of provisions of the Act. The goods in question were accompanied with all proper documents, invoices and G.R. Form-38. Since the new system for downloading the Form-38 from the official website of the Commercial Tax Department (for short 'the department') was introduced, the revisionist was no knowledge and awareness about the same and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of U.P. as a stock of transfer from its manufacturing unit i.e. from Sonipat, Haryana to Lucknow. 5. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgements of this Court passed in the cases of M/s S.B. Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2022 U.P.T.C.[Vol.111] 892 and Protein Impax Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow, (2022F) 49 VLJ 1 (Mad.) by submitting that while imposing the penalty, not a single word has been whispered by the authorities that there was intention of the revisionist to evade payment of tax. He prays for allowing the present revision. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel support the impugned order by submitting that the goods in question....