TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved by the order of the Tribunal dated March 20, 2006. The questions of law referred to are hereunder: (1) Whether, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this honourable court in the case of Aster Technologies (P) Limited, the order passed by the Trade Tax is justified? (2) Whether in view of the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Precision Equipments v. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 2000-01. The facts of the case are that the applicant entered into a contract with the East Central Railway from its Kolkata office for supply, installation and commissioning of SDH equipment with all accessories. In pursuance of the said agreement the applicant was required to supply the goods at the site Sasaram Nokhla Section in the Mughals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but form XXXI was not available. The goods seized, were valued at Rs. 38,86,606 and a security was demanded in cash. The assessee moved an application under section 13A(6) along with form XXXI of the East Central Railway. The security was reduced and the goods were released. Thereafter the penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and a penalty order was passed on October 12, 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out from the material on the record as it is not denied by these two authorities that a form XXXI duly filled by the railways was produced immediately before the seizure of the goods had been released upon the furnishing of some security. In these circumstances I am of the opinion, that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal and the first appellate authority is not correct and the penalty impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
