High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lko. v. Amar Rubber Industries, Meerut - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 38 of 1996  RD-AH 898 (29 March 2005)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(38) of 1996
Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. Applicant
M/S Amar Rubber Industries, Meerut. 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 25th June, 1996 relating to the assessment year 1985-1986.
Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of rubber mattresses, pillows and cushions etc and was registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. Dealer was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act to purchase only four items, namely, Latex, Chemicals, Washing soap and Foam Stabilizer at a concessional rate. During the year under consideration, dealer had purchased dye machine, rubber mixing plant and generators for Rs. 02,94,200/- and issued Form-C in respect thereof. Assessing authority levied the penalty under section 10-A of the Act for the default under section 10 (b) of the Act on the ground that in respect of machinery and generators, dealer was not registered and still while making purchases issued Form-C by making false representation. First appellate authority upheld the levy of penalty but reduced the quantum of penalty to Rs.26,478/-. Dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed and the entire penalty has been deleted.
Heard learned Standing Counsel. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party inspite of the service of notice.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that admittedly, the dealer was not registered under the Central Sales Tax Act for machinery and generators and still while making the purchases made a false representation that it was registered and issued Form-C. He further submitted that the Tribunal has illegally deleted the penalty merely on the ground that by mistake of Advocate in the registration certificate the word ''machinery' could not be mentioned for which the dealer had no malafide intention and further observed that dealer had been issued Form-C without any objection and on these grounds, it has been erroneously held that there was no malafide intention and false representation on the part of the dealer.
I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.
Finding of the Tribunal that there was no malafide intention and false representation on the part of the dealer is based on no material and is perverse. Admittedly, dealer was not registered for machinery and generators whether the word ''machinery' was not mentioned in the registration certificate by mistake of dealer or by the counsel is of no relevance. Relevant consideration is when the dealer was not registered for machinery while making the purchases why it had issued Form-C representing that it was registered for machinery. In my view in case if the dealer was not registered for machinery and still while making the purchases issued Form-C representing that it was registered, reasonable inference would be that false representation has been made. In my view, there was no valid reason for the Tribunal to quash the penalty. Thus the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority is restored.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.