9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. ORDER Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Subham Agrawal and Ms.Rashi Misra learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey learned standing counsel. This revision has been filed by the assessee M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited for the assessment year 2008-09 whereby the penalty has been imposed by the assessing authority under section 54(1)(11)(i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Form E-1 filed by the applicant under U.P. VAT Act, Tribunal ought to have quashed the penalty instead of remanding the case to the first appellate authority? 4. Whether tribunal having recorded a finding in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment that the department has failed to establish any mens rea on the part of the applicant, which is the condition precedent for imposition of penalty in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has sought to impose a penalty on the assessee under section 54(1)(11)(i) of U.P. VAT Act which reads as under. The allegations is that the revisionist supplied Form C and Form E-1 under the provisions of section 6 (2) of the C.S.T. Act and therefore for this wrong declaration, the penalty was liable to be imposed. The language of section 54(1)(11)(i) of the U.P. VAT Act is clear. It contemplate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was any form under the U.P. VAT Act which was false or wrongful. The allegations made by the assessing authority was confined to the Form C and E-1 which are forms under C.S.T.Act. Having heard learned counsel for both sides at length and having perused the material on record, I am of the opinion that the imposition of penalty under section 54(1)(11)(i) of the U.P. VAT Act is not justified i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
