2025 (11) TMI 1332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 105 of 2025 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions. SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 105 of 2025: 3. The present revision has been filed against the judgement & order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur in Second Appeal No. 67/2023 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 under the U.P. VAT Act. 4. The above-noted revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 on the following questions of law framed in the memo of revision:- "A. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur was lega....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., when the same ought to have been printed as per the Rule 44(6) of the Rules framed under the VAT Act. He further submits that on the application of the revisionist, the goods were released and thereafter, penalty proceedings under section 48(5) of the VAT Act were initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued, to which the revisionist submitted its reply. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the Assessing Authority, vide order dated 04.12.2019, imposed the penalty of Rs. 5,48,000/- @ 40% of the value of the goods and created a demand of Rs. 4,38,400/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist preferred first appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2023. Being aggrieved by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Mobile Squad or Flying Squad verifying the books of account of the revisionist. The books of account are verified at the time of passing of the assessment order, but the same has only been rejected on the ground of penalty proceedings initiated against the revisionist. He further submits that once the authorities, in their wisdom, have not searched the place of business of the revisionist after the detention or seizure of the goods, no adverse inference can be drawn against the revisionist. 9. The penalty proceedings can only be initiated if the Department is able to prove, by cogent material, that the revisionist has not recorded the entries in its books of account. He further submits that penalty under section 48(5) of the VAT Act i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed, but manually numbered. Therefore, an inference was drawn that the revisionist has not recorded its transaction properly in the books of account. The record shows that the penalty has been imposed only on the basis of presumption/suspicion. The said ground can be a good ground for seizure, but for levying penalty under section 48(5) of the GST Act, a specific finding has to be recorded after due perusal of the books of account that the transaction in question was not duly recorded in it. 13. It is the case of the revisionist that all the books of account were duly maintained. The record does not show that after detention or seizure of the goods, any inspection or survey was conducted at the business premises of the revisionist to veri....