High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Ved Prakash Ram Kumar, Morganj, Saharanpur v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. At Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1033 of 2006  RD-AH 17380 (9 October 2006)
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J
By the impugned order, Tribunal has confirmed the penalty at Rs.28,000/- under section 15-A (1) (c) of the Act on the ground that the dealer was found suppressing the turnover.
Applicant was carrying on the business of broken rice claimed to have imported from outside the State of U.P. and after adding the profit and expenses paid the tax on the sales. On enquiry the STO (SIB) found in the original 9 R higher value have been shown than the carbon copy of the 9 R and on this basis, suppression has been worked out, the value shown in the original copy of the 9 R and carbon copy of 9 R are referred in the penalty order. On the basis of above suppression turn over has been enhanced and penalty has been levied.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the tax has been paid on the entire purchases of broken rice, the price shown in the 9 R was not relevant for the purposes of Trade Tax, therefore, the estimate of suppressed turnover was not justified. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. It is a patent case of suppression of turnover and disclosure of lesser price in the carbon copy of 9 R than the value shown in the original copy of 9 R. Thus, the levy of penalty under section 15-A (1) (c) of the Act is justified.
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.