2025 (12) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Nagar in Second Appeal No. 246/2019 (2014-15). 3. The following questions of law has been made in the present revision:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities were justified in detaining the vehicle and imposing penalty under Section 48 (5) of UP VAT Act? 2. Whether the authorities below were justified in imposing penalty under section 48 (5) of the UP VAT Act in spite of the dealer having produced all the documents before them before passing the penalty order? 3. Whether the authorities below were justified in imposing the penalty and detaining the goods in spite of there being no intention to evade tax? 4. Whether the Tribunal has erred in not applying its mind to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed vide order dated 2.3.2019. Thereafter the revisionist has challenged the said order in second appeal before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.2.2020. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that for initiation of the proceedings under Section 48 (5) of the Act, definite finding has to be recorded that transaction in question has been omitted in the books of account with intention to evade the payment of tax. He submits that assessing authority while imposing the penalty has recorded finding of fact that entries have been made in the books of account after passing of seizure order, just to compound the same. He submits that once finding has been recorded that the entry has been made, no adverse inferen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter of common knowledge that the books of account of the assessee are always verified at the time of assessment or the provisional assessment. In the case in hand, neither any provisional assessment proceedings were initiated, nor any survey or search was conducted at the business premises of the revisionist. Therefore, the inference drawn only on the basis of seizure of the goods that due entries were for compounding the seizure cannot be justified. 12. This Court in the case of M/s Shree Balaji Concast (supra) has specifically held that for levying penalty, mere suspicion or doubt cannot be justified. For initiation of proceedings, the authority has to come to a definite conclusion that there was an intention to evade payment of tax an....