9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deliberate act of the applicant by purchasing the M-Seal against Form-C rather purchase of MSeal against Form-C was made in bonafide belief that it was an item of Hardware covered by the Registration Certificate as such no penalty can be imposed? 3. The present revision has been filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 1992-93 against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur passed in second appeal arising from the penalty order under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By order dated 31.03.1997 (under Section 10-A of the Act) penalty had been imposed @ 15% on the value of goods purchased "M-Seal" being Rs. 1,40,390/-. The assessing officer had reasoned that the assessee's regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und to be irrelevant for the purpose of imposing penalty. 6. The Tribunal then relied on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Suraj Prasad, Jeoni Mandi, Agra Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow, 1998 NTN (12)-52. Learned counsel for the assessee has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. M/s Sanjiv Fabrics, 2010 NTN (44) 69, wherein while dealing with the penalty under Section 10-A read with Section 10 (b) of the Act, it was held as under: "22. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the use of the expression "falsely represents" is indicative of the fact that the offence under Section 10(b) of the Act comes into existence only where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclusion. There being no dispute to the fact that the item M-Seal is popularly sold at hardware stores a genuine or bonafide error appears to have taken place in treating it to be a hardware item for the purpose of its acquiring stock for conducting trade. At the same time, the revenue authority also did not raise any objection and the mistake may have got repeated. However, that may not itself lead to inference of a false representation made by the assessee. 9. Sri B.K.Pandey, learnred Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the assessee was always aware of the item mentioned in its registration certificate and the fact that the assessee had acquired items other than those mentioned in its registration certificate itself establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est of care required to be taken care cannot be defined for the purpose of application in all cases involving wrong use of Form-C. Second, even if it is established that due care may not have been taken, it would not lead to an automatic or logical conclusion of false declaration or malafide intention. The test to be applied being one of false declaration, absence of care to some extent may not therefore, be relevant. 12. Seen, in the light of the test laid down by the Supreme Court, it appears that the Tribunal has proceeded on a wrong line of reasoning and the consequential reversal of the finding recorded by the first appellate authority does not appear to be based on valid material or reasoning. On the other hand, the first appellate a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
