9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion of law for consideration of this Court :- 1. Whether the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal was justified in upholding the seizure of the goods i.e. yarn by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Mobile Squad IV Unit, Lucknow? 2. Whether learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal was justified in not appreciating the content of Memo of Appeal? 3. Whether learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal was justified in not invoking the provisions of law as enunciated under Section 47, Section 48 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2008? 4. Whether the findings recorded by the Commercial Tax Tribunal are in consonance with the material on record? 5. Whether learned Commercial Tax Tribunal Was justified in disparaging the illegalities committed by learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 41 dated 14.8.2009 but due to unavoidable circumstances, the goods could not moved out from the factory of UP State Spinning Co. Ltd., Barabanki. As and when the goods were ready as per the purchase order, same was moved on 21.8.2009 and due to inadvertent mistake of UP State Spinning Co. Ltd., Barabanki, the date of bill could not be corrected from 20.8.2009 to 21.8.2009. Therefore, the seizure as well as penalty proceeding are bad and liable to be set aside. 7. Rebutting the aforesaid submissions the learned Standing Counsel submits 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 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. Therefore, the letter dated 15.4.2011 could not be taken into consideration by this Court. 9. Further, 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 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
