High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Murari Lal Dinesh Chand v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1521 of 2000  RD-AH 2079 (8 February 2007)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1521 of 2000.
M/S Murari Lal Dinesh Chand, Khergarh, Agra. Applicant
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. Opp.Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 3rd August, 2000 relating to the assessment year, 1997-98 by which the Tribunal has confirmed the penalty levied under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act.
Penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act was levied on the ground that on 15.11.1997, Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Kanpur intercepted vehicle no. MP-006/3725 loaded with Soya Refined Oil. From the possession of the driver one GR No.733 dated 14.11.1997 of M/S Jindal Road Lines, Morana and letter of M/S Ram Swaroop Mahesh Chandra, porsa, Morana dated 14.11.1997 for Rs. 3,88,600/- was found. In the absence of any declaration form, goods were detained and show cause notice was issued. In reply to the show cause notice, applicant appeared before the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad and filed copy of the bill no.147 dated 7.11.1997 and builty of M/S Dheeraj Road Lines, Agra dated 9.11.1997. It was contended that the goods have been sold by the applicant to a Firm of Kanpur against the aforesaid invoice and the same were not imported from outside the State of U.P. It was submitted that the aforesaid two documents, namely, GR No. 733 dated 14.11.1997 and the letter of M/S Ram Swaroop Mahesh Chandra, Porsa, Morana were not related to the goods. It was further explained that since the vehicle was damaged, therefore, it could not be transported earlier and was transported subsequently. The plea of the applicant was not accepted and the goods were seized and subsequently released on furnishing of security. In pursuance of the seizure of the goods, penalty proceeding under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act was initiated. Applicant filed reply to the show cause notice and reiterated the submissions made before the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad. Own affidavit and the affidavit of the driver were also filed stating therein that the documents which were found were not related to the goods. Assessing authority has not accepted the explanation of the applicant and for the violation of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act levied the penalty of Rs. 60,000/- being three times of the tax. Assessing authority held that the bills which were subsequently produced were forged bills, while the documents which were found in the possession of the driver reveals that the goods had been imported from outside the State of U.P. Penalty order has been confirmed by the first appellate authority and by the Tribunal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the documents which were found were not related to the impugned goods and after the detention of the goods, GR No.569 dated 9.11.1997 of Dheeraj Road Lines, Agra and the bill no.147 dated 7.11.1997 issued by the applicant were furnished before the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad and the delay in transporting the goods has also been explained. In the circumstances, there was no reason to infer that the goods have been imported from outside the State of U.P. and the penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act has been illegally levied. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.
Learned counsel for the applicant is not able to show any of the documents that GR No. 733 dated 14.11.1997 of M/S Jindal Road Lines, Morana was not related the impugned goods. When the goods were intercepted, the alleged bill issued by the applicant and the GR No.569 dated 9.11.1997 of M/S Dheeraj Road Lines, Agra were not available. The GR which was found available at the time of checking clearly establishes that the goods had come from Morana, the State of Madhay Pradesh and, therefore, inference drawn by the authorities that the goods were imported from outside the State of U.P. in an attempt to evade the tax cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any basis.
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.