High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Commissioner Trade Tax v. M/S Oxford Shoes Udyog Nagar - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 36 of 2000  RD-AH 20304 (30 November 2006)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(36) of 2000
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. Applicant
M/S Oxford Shoes, Udyog Nagar, Mathura Road, Agra. Opp.Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Heard learned Standing Counsel.
Despite the service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party.
By the impugned order dated 27.09.1999, Tribunal has allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty levied under section 13-A (4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "dealer") was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of footwear. It was registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. A consignment dispatched by the dealer against bill no.35 dated 20th May, 1996 of 127 Cartoons leather shoe was checked by the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad. On checking, bilty no.96 dated 20th May, 1996 and bill no.35 dated 20th May, 1996 were produced. Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad seized the goods on the ground that on the bill, number was mentioned by hand and it was not printed. A show cause notice was issued. Reply to the show cause notice was filed. However, goods were seized and subsequently released on furnishing of security. In pursuance of the seizure order, penalty proceeding under section 13-A (4) was initiated. Dealer filed reply, but the same was not accepted and a sum of Rs. 60,750/- was levied towards penalty. Assessing authority levied the penalty on the ground that challan no. 35 dated 20th May, 1996 was produced two days after the detention and in the column of order NA (not applicable) was mentioned and in the column banker direct was mentioned.
Perusal of the penalty order under section 13-A (4) of the Act reveals that the assessing authority has not held that the bill, which was found at the time of detention, was not issued from the regular bill book and was not found entered in the books of account. First appeal filed by the dealer was dismissed. Dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed. Tribunal held that the goods were duly found entered in the books of account. It has been held that at the time of detention, bill no. 35dated 20th May, 1996 was available and in the absence of any material that the goods were not found entered in the books of account and levy of penalty was unjustified.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.
I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. It is not the case of the Revenue that the bill, which was found at the time of detention, was not found issued from the regular bill book. No finding in this regard has been recorded by the assessing authority. It is not the case that the goods were not found entered in the books of account. Finding of the Tribunal in this regard is finding of fact, which is uncontroverted. Under section 13-A (4) of the Act, penalty can only be levied if the goods were omitted from being shown in the account registers and other documents. No such case has been made out by the Revenue.
In the circumstances, there is no merit in the present revision.
In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.