TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction itself shows different valuation in invoice from the actual value of the goods being imported by the revisionist - this Court does not find any factual or legal infirmity in the order impugned. The Trade Tax Revision stands dismissed. - TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 22 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2021 - Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J. For the Revisionist : Aditya Kumar Tiwari For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla for the respondents. 2. C.M. Application No.45186/2020 has been filed praying for condoning the delay in filing Trade Tax Revision. 3. It has been submitted in the affidavit filed along with application that copy of judgment of the Tribunal was received by the revisionist on 19.3.2020 and in the meantime on account of COVID-19, there was lock down as a result thereof the revisionist could not approach his counsel till July 2020 and revision has been thereafter filed on 5.8.2020. 4. The State respondents have filed objection to the application for condonation of delay, but this Court finds that the delay that has occurred is mostly du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9071724059606 dated 9.7.2017 issued by the consignor which showed three types of tiles being bought and transported and which related to bill no.436 dated 27.1.2017, bill no.432 dated 25.1.2017, bill no.417 dated 15.1.2017, bill no.403 dated 22.12.2016 and bill no.369 dated 6.12.2016. The First Appellate Authority found that consignor had been negligent in marking of the tile boxes with MRP of ₹ 200/- and also found nothing wrong in Form C issued by the vendor and the certificate issued to the same effect and therefore set aside the order dated 11.7.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer and allowed the appeal of the revisionist by order dated 30.11.2019. 9. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P. filed Second Appeal no.30/2020 against the said order before the Tribunal which has now been allowed by the Tribunal taking a wrong assumption that there was collusion between consignor and consignee to show under valued goods in the invoice and facilitate tax evasion. 10. Counsel for revisionist has therefore, proposed three substantial question of law arising for consideration for this Court framed as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f higher value were being imported than were actually shown in the invoice. It has further been submitted that Form C that was issued by the vendor was of a later date as it was issued on 9.7.2017 whereas Mobile Squad had carried out inspection on 2.11.2016, and clearly Form C issued by the vendor was an afterthought only to cover up the intention for tax evasion. The goods purchased by revisionist were of higher value but invoice showed a lower value. 13. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for State respondents that Tribunal has already taken into account the fact that revisionist had submitted different explanations for this transaction before the different taxing authorities. Before First Assessing Officer the revisionist has submitted that although it had bought 2696 boxes of three types of tiles having different value, the vendor had mistakenly loaded tiles of same value of ₹ 200/- on vehicle. Later on, before First Appellate Authority, the revisionist submitted certificate issued by the vendor showing that although the tiles were of three different varieties having three different prices, foreman Incharge of Godown has mistakenly put stickers of same MRP o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, this Court dismissed the revision filed by Commissioner, Commercial Tax. 18. In the case of revisionist however this Court finds that a finding that has been recorded by first Assessing Officer regarding different valuation of each of the tile boxes in the invoice on physical verification, has not been disputed and in fact it has been admitted and the only explanation that has been given is that such discrepancy occurred due to mistake on the part of consignor. The judgment cited by counsel for revisionist is inapplicable. 19. Counsel for revisionist has also relied on Sales/Trade Tax Revision no.651/2013. The penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act was set aside by Tribunal and this Court dismissed the TTR relying on the Circular issued by Commissioner Trade Tax which was to the effect that in case Form 38 accompanying imported goods had been left incomplete, the officer managing the Check Post should have filled the same himself and should have allowed the vehicle to proceed along with goods. 20. This Court finds from a careful perusal of judgment in Sales/Trade Tax Revision no.651/2013 that it was not disputed that the goods that were tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
