9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on merits at the stage of admission itself. I have heard learned Standing counsel and Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. The only question of law which has been raised in these revisions is whether the tribunal is legally justified in reducing the security of 40% of the estimated value of the goods to twice the amount of tax imposable on the value of the goods so estimated. Chapter VIII of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act provides for the penalty. In section 54 it has been provided that where the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or person has committed some wrong described in column 2 of the table it shall direct such dealer or person to pay by way of penalty a sum as provided in column 3 of the table i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing to direct the release of the goods without any deposit or on depositing such lesser amount or furnishing security in such form other than cash or indemnity bond as may be deemed fit. Against such an order passed by the Commissioner or the officer not below of the rank of Deputy Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 48 (7) of the Act, appeal has been provided before the tribunal under Section 57 (4) of the Act. By virtue of sub-section (8) of Section 57 of the Act the Tribunal in exercise of its appellate power is vested with the authority to confirm, cancel or vary such orders or to set aside the order and direct the assessing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmation, cancellation or variance by the tribunal. Learned Standing counsel has placed reliance upon 2001 NTN (19) 627 State of Rajasthan and another Vs. D.P. Metals in submitting that where the legislature prescribes a fixed rate of penalty, the authorities can not deviate from the same and demand a lesser amount. The above was a case under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 wherein a fixed penalty was provided and as such it was held that quantum of penalty so fixed is not illegal and liable to be reduced. Here in the present case , dispute is not with regard to penalty or the quantum of penalty. It is with regard to security to be furnished for the purposes of release of the seized goods. The Act only provides for a maximum of amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
