2006 (12) TMI 477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uot;) is directed against the order of Tribunal dated August 3, 1999 relating to the assessment year, 1989-90 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Central Act"). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty under section 10A of the Central Act, which was levied by the assessing authority for the violation of section 10(b) of the Central .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... resentation on behalf of the dealer. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the order of the Tribunal is patently erroneous. He submitted that admittedly the dealer was not registered for the impugned items, which were imported from outside the State of U.P. and in respect of which form C were issued. He further submitted that merely because the details of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No explanation has been furnished that why the form C was issued when the dealer was not registered for the aforesaid items under the Central Act. In this view of the matter, it is a case where while issuing form C, dealer had falsely represented that it was registered and issued form C. Dealer is, accordingly, liable for penalty under section 10A of the Central Act. Since the Tribunal has not co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X