High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Shilpi Steel Jhansi v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 183 of 2002  RD-AH 1436 (18 November 2004)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.183 OF 2002
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.184 OF 2002
M/s Shilpi Steel, Jhansi. ....Applicant
Commissioner of Trade Tax. ....Opp.party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 19.02.2002 relating to the assessment year 1999-2000 arising from the penalty proceedings under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was carrying on the business of Iron scrap. It is the case of the applicant that it had purchased iron scrap at Bina (Madhya Pradesh) and was bringing the same to Jhansi by two trucks. Both the trucks were checked at Mehrauni road. On checking admittedly declaration form as contemplated under section 28-A of the Act was not there and the statements of the drivers were recorded, in which they stated that they were asked to come from the different route, in which there was no check post. On these facts, goods were seized and appears to have been released on furnishing of security. In pursuance of seizure order, penalty proceeding under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act was initiated. Applicant filed reply, which was not accepted and the penalty at Rs.15,480/- and Rs.16,344/- was levied. Appeals filed against the orders were dismissed. Applicant filed second appeals before the Tribunal, which were also dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the goods were intercepted before the check post. Since the applicant did not have Form-31 and to save the time drivers were asked to come to the check post, where the declaration forms would be provided but the drivers had come from the different route for which applicant can not be held responsible. He submitted that the declaration forms were issued on 18.08.1999 from the office of the assessing authority, which were submitted on the same day before the check post officer. On these facts, he submitted that there was no intent to evade the tax and the provisions of section 28-A of the Act was not violated. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the facts and circumstances stated in the order of the Tribunal fully justifies the levy of penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. He submitted that the goods were being transported through a different route in which there is not check post. On checking, no declaration was found, which establishes that the intent to import the goods was to evade the tax. Therefore, penalty was rightly levied.
I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.
Admittedly, goods were being transported through the route, in which there was no check post. It was intercepted at Mehrauni road. Drivers of the truck stated that they were directed to transport the goods through the route, in which there was not check post. On the inspection, no declaration form was found. These facts establishes that there was intent to avoid the tax. Therefore, it can not be said that the penalty levied by assessing authority is unjustified. On the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in both the revisions.
In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.