TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 54 (1)(22) of the Act, however, in face of evidence that the goods were meant for being transported from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh to outside State of Uttar Pradesh, no penalty may arise merely because of that conduct offered by the driver of the truck - at present, it is seen that at the stage of detention of goods itself, the assessee had disclosed the exact value and quantity of goods along with details of the seller and the purchaser both of whom were located outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. The documents that were produced by the assessee by way of proof to disbelieve the allegation of transaction again pertains to same two dealer, with respect to the same commodity and quantity of the goods. In the first place, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivery to the dealer outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, any penalty could have been imposed? 3. In short, the assessee is the owner of the truck bearing registration No HR-38 P-9788. Admittedly, the said truck was detained at Mathura on 26.08.2010 during the course of transportation of goods. A penalty notice under Section 54(1)(15) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued to the assessee. At the time of checking, the truck was found loaded with 26400 kg. of the commodity Moong Daal . It was also found accompanied with G.R., tax invoice and goods receipts. According to those documents, the goods had been sold by one M/s. Prashant Prakash Lal Gandhi, General Merchant and C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 Where the driver or person in charge of the vehicle, as the case may be, - (i) fails to fails to carry documents referred to in Section 52 and also fails to prove that goods carried in his vehicle are meant for delivery to dealers or persons outside the State; or (ii) While carrying such documents for transit of goods through the State undertakes responsibility of handing over such goods to a bona-fide person inside the State for carrying them outside the State but fails to handover such goods to such bonafide person; (iii) being a person, who receives any goods from driver or person in charge of a vehicle for carrying them outside the State, does not carry such goods outside the State; or (iv) bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted either in the description of the goods or documents found accompanying the same. It is therefore submitted that the omission to carry the TDF was not intentional but only accidental. In any case, it has been submitted that mere absence of TDF, would not satisfy the condition for imposition of penalty, inasmuch as, the Act further requires that failure to carry the documents must be accompanied with a failure to prove that the goods were meant for delivery outside the State. The assessee had established both at the stage of detention as also subsequently by way of his reply that the goods were actually delivered to M/s. Om Prakash Ashok Kumar at Delhi. There did not survive any occasion or justification for imposition of penalty unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue to establish that the claim made by the assessee was wrong and/or false. However, at present, it is seen that at the stage of detention of goods itself, the assessee had disclosed the exact value and quantity of goods along with details of the seller and the purchaser both of whom were located outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. The documents that were produced by the assessee by way of proof to disbelieve the allegation of transaction again pertains to same two dealer, with respect to the same commodity and quantity of the goods. 11. Therefore, in the first place, the assessee appears to have discharged the burden cast on him to prove that the goods were transported from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and that they had a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
