Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LOK. versus S/S MITTAL STEEL TRADERS ANANDPURI, ROORKEE ROAD

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lok. v. S/S Mittal Steel Traders Anandpuri, Roorkee Road - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 470 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 17333 (6 October 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(470) OF 1999

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(498) OF 1999

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow.     ....Applicant

Versus

S/S Mital Steel Traders, Muzaffarnagar.   .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 10th December, 1998 relating to the assessment year 1991-92, by which Tribunal has set aside the penalty levied under section 13-A (4) of the Act.

Brief facts of the case are that on 18.02.1992, tractor trolley no.USP-5573 was checked by S.T.O. (SIB), Muzaffarnagar. It was found that the trolley was loaded with 10.500MT old iron burada. At the time of inspection bill no.141 dated 18.02.1992 issued in favour of M/s Paliwal Steels Limited, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar was produced. The goods were detained on the ground that the bill was found doubtful. Show cause notice was issued to the Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer").  In pursuance thereof, it appears that the bill book was produced but the other books of account were not produced. Assessing authority seized the goods on the ground that the bill could not be verified from the bill book. The goods were subsequently released on furnishing of security.  In pursuance of the seizure order, penalty proceeding under section 13-A (3) of the Act was initiated. After the reply from the dealer, penalty at Rs.21,420/- was levied. Assessing authority held that the original copy of the bill could not be produced before the S.T.O. (S.I.B.) and not before him. It has been observed that there was a difference  in the writing of the bill which was found at the time of the inspection and the carbon copy of the bill available in the bill book and, therefore, on the ground  that the goods were not properly recorded in the books of account  penalty was levied.  First appellate authority allowed the appeal in part. First appellate authority sustained the penalty on the ground that there was a difference in the writing of the bill found at the time of the inspection and the carbon copy of the bill available in the bill book. It has been inferred that the carbon copy of the bill book has been prepared by tracing. First appellate authority, however, looking to the rate of tax of the commodities and on the basis of the circular issued by Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 28.08.1991 reduced the penalty to Rs.4,284/- being two times of the tax. Being aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority dealer as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax and allowed the appeal filed by the dealer and set aside the penalty levied under section 13-A (4) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, present two revisions have been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deleting the penalty merely on the ground that the entries of the goods are available in the bill book, ledger and stock register, though the Tribunal has not disputed that there was a difference in the copy of the bill produced at the time of inspection and the carbon copy available in the bill book. Learned Standing Counsel produced the copy of the bill, produced at the time of inspection and the carbon copy of the bill available in the bill book to show that there was major difference in the writing of both the bills. He submitted that the difference in the bill book leads to inference that the bill has been subsequently prepared by tracing and at the time of inspection of the goods, entries of the goods were not available in the bill book. He submitted that if the bill would have been issued from the bill book and the entries would have been available in the cash book, ledger and stock register, there was no occasion to manipulate the carbon copy of the bill in the bill book subsequently. Learned counsel for the dealer relied upon the order of the Tribunal and submitted that since the necessary entries were found in the books of account, Tribunal has rightly deleted the penalty.

Having Heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of Tribunal, authorities below and also perused the record containing the bill produced at the time of inspection and the carbon copy of the bill available in the bill book.

From the perusal of the two bills, it is clear that there are major difference in the writing of both the bills. The differences have been referred in the order of the first appellate authority. Thus, it is absolutely clear that carbon copy of the bill available in the bill book had been prepared subsequently by tracing. In the circumstances, it leads to the inference that at the time of inspection goods were not entered in the books of account and they have been subsequently entered in the books of account.  In my view, if the goods were not found entered in the books of account at the time of inspection of the goods, penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act was leviable.  Subsequent entry of the goods in the books of account after the checking of the goods is wholly immaterial and can not be ground for deleting the penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act. As observed above, goods were not found entered in the books of account at the time of the inspection, therefore, the penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act has rightly been levied. Looking to the rate of tax and other circumstances, in my view, order of the first appellate authority reducing the penalty at Rs.4,284/- is liable to be sustained.

In the result, both the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority is restored. Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order under section 11 (8) of the Act.

Dt.06.10.2006

R./


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.