TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed by the parties before this Court. In the said registration certificate which is effective from May 29, 1976, the dealer has been authorised to issue form C in respect of various items mentioned in the registration certificate. One of the items mentioned in the said registration certificate is at the Serial No. 20. Against the Serial No. 20 "machine tools" is mentioned. The assessing officer issued a show cause notice to the dealer to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for issuing form C in respect of various items which are not covered by the registration certificate. Although in the show cause notice the department objected the issuance of form C in respect of number of items but since the penalty has been lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the "wielding material" imported in State of U.P. against form C is covered under entry No. 20 of the registration certificate. In other words it is nothing but "machine tools". In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon two judgments of this Court in the case of (1) Wasti Ram Sons v. Commissioner, Sales Tax 1987 UPTC 1366 and (2) Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Tek Invest (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 133 STC 148; 1998 UPTC 128. In my view none of the aforesaid judgments have any application to the facts of the present case. Neither the learned counsel for the dealer nor the learned Standing Counsel could point out as to what is meaning of "machine tools". The dealer has justified issuance of form C with referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machine tools". "Wielding material" cannot be treated "machine tools". 5.. At this stage it is necessary to notice the observation of the Tribunal in the order under revision which has not been controverted. It reads as follows: "The only material on which the assessee falls back to substantiate their bona fides is the registration certificate. They would, however, admit that the goods enumerated in the registration certificate do not enable them to purchase the goods which they did by issue of form C. The items imported, for which the C forms in question were issued do not fall in the categories mentioned in the list of the registration certificate." 6. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure recorders. 24. Reduction gear and its spare parts. 25. Springs. 26. Lathe machine, shaper, planner, drilling machine, grinders bands of machine, anvil, bench-vicsa. 27. Steam valves, pressure tubes. 28. Centrifugal machine. 29. D.S.M. screen. 30. Filter presses for sugar factory. 31. Sulphur burner. 32. De-super-heating station containing archa valves, etc. 33. Over head cranes. 34. Double reduction gear. 35. Weighting machine. 36. Centrifugal pumps. 37. Diesel generating set. 38. Vacuum filter. 39. Brass tubes. 40. Chain and slates. 41. Filter press plates and frames. 42. Cane cutting knives. 43. Power capacitors. 44. Fire fighting equipments. 45. Electrical equipments and other electrical goods: (1) Electric motors. (2) Starters. (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se representation and mens rea were also attempted to be challenged. Reliance was placed on two decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. 1995 UPTC 1137 and Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 2003 UPTC 1197. 10.. On facts the aforesaid decisions are distinguishable. Firstly, no such plea was taken by the dealer in reply to the show cause notice. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the dealer had been issuing form C in respect of the aforesaid three items in dispute since the time of registration. The learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any material from which it can be inferred that the dealer had been issuing form C in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nauthorisedly issued form C for the value of Rs. 4,83,832.62 and the assessing officer has levied penalty at the rate of 12 per cent on Rs. 22,213, on Rs. 4,04,621.82 at the rate of 15 per cent and on Rs. 36,168 at the rate of 18 per cent. There is some substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the minimum penalty should have been levied as the applicant is a unit of State Government, namely, U.P. State Sugar Corporation and is run by officers and there is no personal gain to them by making false representation. Therefore the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for levy of minimum amount of penalty, i.e., equivalent to the difference amount of tax which has been avoided by issuing form C. 13.. In the result, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
