Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 230 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImposition of penalty - discrepancy in Form 38, E-Sugam form - Section 54(1) (14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Truck was accompanied by Form 38 and all other documents were being carried along with other documents and only due to human error column would remain unfilled. It was the duty of the Officer managing the Check Post who after discovering column 8 of Form 38 found remain unfilled should have filled the said column himself in light of the notification dated 03.02.2009 and allowed the vehicle to proceed alongwith the goods. There are no merit in the finding recorded by the Commercial Tax Tribunal that revisionist has not produced any affidavit or any other evidence to canvas his claim regarding the fact there was no intention to evade tax. It is observed that it has been recorded by the authorities below that the vehicle carried the goods was accompanied by builty and other documents from which the goods could be verified and it is not the case of the Revenue that the vehicle was carrying either different goods or different quantity of goods, the details of which are mentioned in Form 38 and other documents which were carried by the truck driver. The judgment passed by this Court in the case of I.C.I. India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2003 (3) TMI 695 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has clearly speltout the law in this regard and a notification issued by the Revenue clearly indicates that the Officer managing the Check Post after verifying the goods should have filled up the Column 8 of Form 38 in accordance with the documents and there was no occasion for imposing a penalty as has been done by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commercial Tax Tribunal. Revision allowed.
|