Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2011 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 1265 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTWhether levy of penalty under section 13A(4) of the Act can be said to be unjustified? Held that:- None of the authorities below has accepted the explanation put forward by the applicant that it has sold only 9 M.T. bitumen against bill No. 79 dated March 1, 2002 which was being transported in Tanker No. U.P. 81 D-4408 from Agra to Jabalpur and further 10.310 M.T. bitumen was loaded in the said tanker at Mathura, which was purchased by Jabalpur party from Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Tanker No. U.A.C. 9078 had been subjected to break down. Admittedly, at the time of inspection, neither the bill of 19.310 M.T. bitumen was produced nor the bill of 9 M.T. bitumen, claimed to have been sold by the applicant, was produced. Bill No. 7924318 dated February 14, 2002 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and G.R. No. 597 dated March 1, 2002 were produced. In bill No. 7924318 dated February 14, 2002, Tanker No. U.A.C. 9078 was mentioned. There was nothing to show that the said bill and bilties relate to the goods loaded in the tanker. The driver and khalasi of the tanker in their statements have not stated that the goods of Tanker No. U.A.C. 9078 have been loaded in Tanker No. U.P. 81 D-4408. Admittedly, the entries of 19.310 M.T. bitumen, found at the time of inspection, was not found entered in the books of account of the applicant. In the circumstances, levy of penalty under section 13A(4) of the Act cannot be said to be unjustified.Appeal dismissed.
|