TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was trying to alter the records so as to explain the transaction in its own account. The fact that the goods were seized at a place which does not situate upon the route on which such goods were being transported; the interpolation in the records in the stock register etc. are relevant facts, and opinion based thereupon to hold that the accounts have not been properly maintained, and that there was an intention to evade payment of tax, cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse so as to warrant any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision fails - decided against revisionist. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision Defective No. 5 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. For the Applicant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2016 NTN (62) 317, in order to contend that an order under Section 48 (5) of the Act can be passed only if following twin conditions are satisfied: (a) The authorities are satisfied that goods were omitted from being shown in the accounts, registers and other documents referred to in sub-Section (1) or not traced to any bonafide dealer or not properly counted for by any dealer or that the goods contained wrong particulars or are undervalued to the extent of more than 50% of the value of goods in the local market where the said transaction had taken place. (b) The authorities are further of the opinion that there was an intention to evade payment of tax. Learned counsel submits that in the factual scenario of the present case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to in subsection (1) or not traced to any bonafide dealer or not properly accounted for by any dealer or documents issued by a bonafide dealer with respect to the accompanying goods contained wrong particulars or the goods are undervalued to the extent of more than fifty percent of the value of goods prevalent at the relevant time in the local market area where the said transaction had tak en place, with intention to evade payment of tax, it shall pass an order imposing a penalty not exceeding forty percent of the value of such goods, as he deems fit. Learned counsel for the revisionist is correct in contending that the sub-Section 5 can be invoked only if the authorities are satisfied that the goods in question were omitted from b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the authorities have found that neither the accounts have been properly maintained, and that the transaction itself as is being sought to be made out, was not a bonafide transaction but was merely an attempt to justify an Act undertaken with the intend of evading payment of tax. The twin conditions contemplated in order to attract sub Section 5 have been specifically dealt with, and findings on both the accounts have been returned. Learned counsel for the revisionist, although has attempted to challenge such findings but the recital of facts mentioned therein, leave no room of doubt for this Court to question such factional issues in this revision. The fact that the goods were seized at a place which does not situate upon the route on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
