9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies, all the revisions are being heard finally. TTR No.578 of 2014 4- The facts of the case are that on 19.8.2013 a truck No.HR-55C/2066 was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad-Vth Unit, Moradabad. On physical verification, the goods were found accompanied with a Challan No.5730 dated 16.8.2013 and two bilties Nos.24398 and 2497 both dated 16.8.2013, Invoice No.2069 dated 16.8.2013 of M/s Vinay Sales, Delhi and Invoice No.441 dated 16.8.2013 of M/s United Hardware and Paints, New Delhi, a declaration form for import (Form -16) No.1679703 of Uttarakhand State issued by M/s Mittal Enterprises, Khateema and a TDF dated 17.8.2013. On physical verification number of goods loaded in the truck were found different, as compared to the accompanied challan, invoices and TDF. Apart from this against total 206 articles mentioned in the above noted two bilties, 222 articles were found and several goods were found different in quantity or quality. Several goods mentioned in the accompanied invoice/challan were not found in the truck. Form No.16 of Uttarakhand State was found totally blank. On checking from Internet the TIN numbers of M/s United Hardware and Paints, New Delh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Delhi to Khateema. On physical verification, 357 articles were found which did not match with the goods mentioned in the bills and bilties. Number of articles were found short or in excess and several articles were not found loaded in the truck. Form-16 of Uttarakhand State was found totally blank. On verification, the other firms of Delhi whose invoices were accompanied with the goods were found non-existent. No payment details were submitted. 9- On these facts, vide order dated 2.12.2013, the assessing authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,99,496/- on the ground that the respondent could not prove that the goods reached outside the State of U.P. and the consignors are non-bonafide dealer and the goods in question have been imported within the State of U.P. without any proper and genuine documents and the same has not reached outside the State of U.P. 10- Aggrieved with this order, the respondent filed First Appeal No.32 of 2014, which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 28.2.2014. Against this order the respondent filed Second Appeal No.353 of 2014, which was allowed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Moradabad Bench, Moradabad vide order dated 14.8.2014 on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 On 1.9.2014, a truck No.HR-38M/4475 was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-III, Moradabad. Four bilties and one Challan of the respondent and invoices of M/s Manpreet Footwear Pvt. Ltd., M/s Singh Enterprises, Delhi, M/s Rahul Printers & Packers, Delhi were found. Apart from this Form-16 (totally blank) of Uttarakhand Sate allegedly issued by M/s S.A. Enterprises, Khateema and a TDF dated 1.9.2013 were also found. On physical verification, number of articles were not found in the truck and several articles were found short or in excess. Several goods were not found. Other discrepancies were also found as noted in detail in the penalty order with respect to each invoices and challan. All the alleged firms, whose invoices were found accompanying the goods, were found non-existent. Payment details were not submitted by the respondent with respect to these goods. It could not be proved that the goods actually reached outside the State of U.P. On these facts penalty of Rs. 3,20,000/- was imposed vide penalty order dated 28.11.2013. First Appeal No.29 of 2014 filed by the respondent was rejected by the appellate authority on 28.2.2014. Second Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers were found non-existent. No payment details were produced by the respondent. On these facts penalty of Rs. 4,34,240/- was imposed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 28.11.2013. The First Appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed vide order dated 2.4.2014. The Second Appeal No.357 of 2014 filed by the respondent was allowed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Moradabad Bench, Moradabad vide impugned order dated 14.8.2014 merely on the ground that the respondent is a transporter and has discharged his burden that the goods reached outside the State of U.P. 19- Aggrieved with this order, the applicant has filed the present revision. 20- TTR No.585 of 2014 On 1.9.2013, a truck No. U.P.78-4382 was intercepted by the authorities. On a verification, the goods were found accompanied with a Challan of the respondent, invoices of M/s Santoshi Footwears, Delhi, Ramesh Plastic, Delhi, M/s Rama Stationers, Delhli and M/s Kapoor Hardware, Delhi. Form-16 of Uttarakhand State issued by M/s Mittal Enterprises, Khateem, was found totally blank. A TDF was also found. On verification, all the Delhi firms were found non-existent. No payment detail with respect to the goods in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uploaded on the Uttarakhand website in Form-16, to come to the conclusion that the goods have reached outside the State of U.P. The Tribunal allowed the second appeals merely on the ground that the respondent is merely a transporter and has discharges the burden. This finding of the Tribunal appears to be perverse, inasmuch as the challans of the respondent for the goods in all the seven transactions were found, when the truck was intercepted. The alleged dealers, whose invoices were found accompanying with the goods, were found non-existent. No payment details could be submitted by the respondent nor he could file copies of Form-C, while the goods were shown to have been sold against Form-C. 25- In view of these facts, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the goods actually reached outside the State of U.P. and that the respondent is merely a transporter, appears to be perverse and without consideration to the relevant evidences and materials on record. The Tribunal should have considered each and every evidence which are on record and thereafter should have recorded its findings. The failure of the Tribunal to do so renders the impugned order to be unsustainable. 26- In v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
