9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 due to COVID-19 situation and in view of observation made by the Supreme Court in suo moto Writ Petition Civil no.3 of 2020, the delay in approaching this Court in revision is liable to be condoned. It is condoned. 5. The application for condonation of delay having been allowed, the Trade Tax Revision has been treated to have been filed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The revisionist filed First Appeal which was allowed on 30.11.2019 by the First Appellate Authority, Additional Commissioner, Appeals, Ayodhya. The First Appellate Authority accepted the explanation given by the revisionist that although it had purchased three types of tiles, the vendor had been negligent and had marked MRP of Rs. 200/- each on the tile boxes. This mistake could not be noticed at the time of loading of material on the vehicle carrying the same to Ayodhya. The First Appellate Authority relied upon Form C no.09071724059606 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de liable for mistakes and actions by the consignee?" (3) Whether there was an intention on the part of revisionist and under Section 54(1)(14) VAT Act it is mandatory to examine the material on record and discuses the merit of matter and record the clear finding with regard to intention whereas, there is no material on record in the order of assessing authority regarding the physical verification of each boxes/cartoons?" 11. Counsel for revisionist has emphasized that foreman of vendor while getting the tile boxes loaded in the vehicle had mistakenly put price tag of Rs. 200/- on each of the boxes for which revisionist could not be penalized. A certificate to that effect was also issued by the vendor which was rightly believed by First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abling the dealer to fill up Form 38 again and again and use the same Form repeatedly for different transactions. The Court however came to the conclusion that before the Tribunal, the department had only submitted that assessee has used magic ink. In case, the magic ink was being used by consignor, the respondent being only a purchasing dealer, could not be held liable for the mistake of the consignor. There was no finding of the Department to establish that ink that was being used was liable to evaporate without leaving an impression therefore no penalty could be imposed upon purchasing dealer. 17. In the case cited by counsel for revisionist with Sales/Trade Tax Revision no.126/2019 this Court finds that transaction was covered against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mn of Form 38 had been left blank, therefore the judgment cited by counsel for revisionist is of no help to the revisionist. 21. The third case relied upon by counsel for revisionist i.e. Sales/Trade Tax Revision no.119 of 2016 relates to discrepancy in date of manufacture/batch number mentioned in the invoice, when compared with actual consignment loaded on the truck. This Court relied upon judgment rendered in M/s. Great Glen Distilleries and Wineries Ltd. Varanasi vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1995 UPTC 699, to observe that batch number of the product had no relevance whatsoever so far as sales tax is concerned. The goods being carried were cases of Ritz whisky and what was material was the number of cases and the bottles and the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
