TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence on record. The revisionist has neither filed any document nor any material to support his contention. On the contrary, along with the revision, a letter dated 15.4.2011 has been annexed but the said letter or any affidavit was neither filed at the time of interception of the goods nor prior to passing of seizure order nor passing the penalty order and nor before passing the order of the first appellate authority. The authorities were justified to draw the inference against the dealer that whatever stand is being taken by the revisionist at the time of passing of the penalty order is an afterthought - The record shows that the goods were dispatched from the factory of UP State Spinning Co. Ltd. on 20.8.2019. Revision dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommitted by learned First Appellate Authority? 6. Whether Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in not appreciating the view expressed by various laws laid down by catena of judicial pronouncements? 3. The facts of the case is that the the revisionist is a registered dealer and is involved in sale and purchase of staple yarn. It has been contended that revisionist place an order of staple yarn and the goods were being transported from Barabanki to Kanpur but it was intercepted and seized on 21.8.2009 by Mobile Sqard, Unit-IV, Lucknow and a sum of ₹ 36000/- was demanded for release and security of goods and the goods were released on depositing the said amount. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the penalty proceeding has rightly been initiated as at the time of interception, Tax Invoice No. 41 of 14.8.2009 was accompanying the goods and seller bill i.e. Tax Invoice No. 589 dated 20.8.2009 was there but second copy of the tax invoice was also not accompanying the goods. Moreover, the tax invoice issued by the assessee has also not preauthenticated as per the requirements of the Act. He further submits that the authorities were wholly correct and justified in drawing the inference against the dealer that the goods in the garb of tax invoices dated 14.8.2009 and 20.8.2009, were being transported again with a view to evade the payment of tax. 8. The record shows that the vehicle i.e. UP 32 BN 6017 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hought. The revisionist has failed to show or justify its action in support of his contention for issuance of Tax Invoice No. 41 dated 14.8.2009 without receiving the goods from UP State Spinning Co. Ltd. The goods cannot be sold without its purchase. Case in hand, the revisionist sold the goods by Tax Invoice No. 41 dated 14.8.2009, without even receiving the same from UP State Spinning Co. Ltd. The record shows that the goods were dispatched from the factory of UP State Spinning Co. Ltd. on 20.8.2019. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, levy of penalty is justified. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. Hence the present revision is dismissed and que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
