TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishi Raj Kapoor, Krishna Agarwal For the Opposite Party : C. S. C ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned standing counsel. This revision lays challenge to an order of the Tribunal which has upheld the imposition of penalty which came to be foisted upon the assessee consequent to proceedings drawn up by the assessing authority under Section 15-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948. It becomes relevant note that the order of the assessing authority has been set at nought by the first appellate authority which found that there was no intent to evade tax and that the imposition of penalty was therefore unjustified. It is this order which was overturned by the Tribunal by the order impugned. The und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation submitted by the assessee and imposed penalty. On appeal, the first appellate authority decided in favour of the assessee and set aside the levy of penalty. This order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was assailed by the Department before the Tribunal which has vide the order challenged herein allowed the same. Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel appearing in support of this revision has contended that the Tribunal has clearly erred in interfering with the view taken by the first appellate authority. It has categorically recorded that there had been no intent to evade tax. He has placed heavy reliance upon the findings returned by the first appellate authority which recorded that concessional rate of tax at 4% under the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there had been no attempt to evade payment of tax. The circumstance of the Form-31 having been applied in the name of a different trader than the one from whom the purchases were ultimately effected would not and could not have dispelled or upset the conclusion arrived. In M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Ld Vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 119 of 2016 decided 12 July 2016), this Court has upon consideration of the consistent view taken by the Court held that the imposition of penalty upon the assessee on account of a discrepancy in the batch numbers and the date of manufacture was clearly unjustified and unwarranted. Relevant paragraph of the judgment of this Court in M/s. Hindustan Coca Cole Beve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
