9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty U/s 15 A (1) (o) of UP Trade Tax Act in spite of the fact that there was no intention to evade payment of tax? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in sustaining the penalty, inasmuch as, Form -31 has been produced before the seizure order and the transaction is recorded in the books of account of both consignee and consignor? (iii) Whether, the Tribunal was legally justified in levying the penalty at a so excessive rate? 5. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is an authorized dealer of Tata Motors Limited and engaged in the business of sale of Tata vehicles and chassis etc. The revisionist purchases chassis against Form 3 A as prescribed under UP Trade Tax Act. In the disputed year, the applicant, after purchase of chassis against Form 3 A from Tata Motors Limited Lucknow and send the same to M/s. CBECCO Limited, Jabalpur to mount body on the said chassis. After the body was mounted on chassis, the sale were made to the respected buyers raising the bill. On 27.1.2006, 04 dumpers were intercepted by the Mobile Squad and it was found that only Bill No. 932 dated 25.1.2006 was available along with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm. Therefore, he tries to justify the initiation of penalty proceeding and prays for dismissal of the revision. 8. The court has perused the records. 9. It is not in dispute that the revisionist is an authorized dealer of Tata Motor Limited and chassis were being purchased against Form 3 A of UP Trade Tax Act. After purchase of chassis, same were sent to M/s CBECCO Limited, Jabalpur for mounting body over it and thereafter the vehicles were coming back to the revisionist. On close scrutiny of the materials on record, it shows that the chassis, which were purchased against Form 3 A, were sent out side from the State of UP for mounting the body over it and thereafter final bills were issued to the respective customers mentioning the value of chassis as well as the body, separately. The record further reveals that while sending the chassis from the State of UP to Madhya Pradesh, temporary registration as well as transit insurance were taken in the name of the revisionist. Further the record reveals that the revisionist had issued Form C to the body manufacturer i.e. M/s CBECCO Limited, Jabalpur and on the strength of Form C lower rate of Central Sales Tax was charges @ 4% only. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been taken by the revisionist that an agreement was entered with the respective buyers and as per the agreement and on the request of the customers, after the sale of chassis, the revisionist was compeled to send the chassis for mounting the body over it and after the body was got mounted, the chassis were received back along with body mounted over it and thereafter final bills were prepared and the chassis along with the body were sold. The record further reveals that an agreement dated 10.1.2006 has been shown and one Bill C.A. No. 500776 dated 20.2.2006 was issued on which booking date of chassis was shown as 18.2.2006. Further on the agreement, the date of delivery of chassis was shown as 10.1.2006. The said fact clearly shows that the different stands have been taken by the revisionist at every stage. On the one hand, in the alleged agreement, the date of delivery has been mentioned as 10.1.2006 but on the other hand while issuing the Bill for the vehicle, on the bill, booking date of chassis has been shown as 18.2.2006. This itself shows the intention of the revisionist for non-payment of legitimate tax due to the State. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the warranty claimed by the respective customers, for which credit notes were received from the Company, i.e., Tata Motors Limited, the same has been affirmed upto the Tribunal. Hence, the present revision. 16. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the motor vehicles are taxable at the point of sale to consumer, therefore, Form 3-A was issued on the purchase of motor vehicles as well as chassis. During the normal course of business, on the request of 16 customers, the chassis were sent to Jabalpur for construction of body over it. Thereafter, after mounting of body on the said chassis, the chassis were received back along with body. Thereafter, final invoices were issued to the purchasers. He further submits that before sending chassis for mounting of body, an agreement was entered, which contemplates the responsibility of the dealer to get the chassis mounted from Jabalpur Body Builder - M/s CEBBCO, Jabalpur (MP). He further submits that under the agreement, the revisionist was compelled to perform the duty for sending the chassis and getting it back from the builder. He further submits that delivery of chassis was given to the respective buyers and the deale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the customers is concerned, the same is covered by the two judgements of this Court in Mohd. Ekram Khan & Sons Vs. CTT reported in 2004 NTN (Vol. 25) 1047/2004 UPTC 198, which has been affirmed by the Apex Court and further, in Sales Tax Revision No. 163 of 2015 (CCT Vs. S/S Maskat Motors Pvt. Ltd.) decided by this Court on 08.12.2016. Hence, the issue involved in the present revision squarely covered by the said two judgements. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 19. The Court has perused the records. 20. Facts, as stated above, are not in dispute two issues are raised with regard to the first issue of purchases of 16 chassis made against Form 3-A, on which body was mounted and admittedly, the revisionist is liable to tax. It is undisputed that the said chassis were purchased against Form 3-A as the goods in question are taxable at the point of sale to the consumers under section 3AAA of the Act. The revisionist has stated that the chassis were handed over to the respective buyers in pursuance of agreement and on their request, the same were taken back and were sent to Jabalpur to Body Builder - M/s CEBBCO, Jabalpur (MP) for mounting of body over it. While sending t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and condition. If the goods, so purchased against Form 3-A, were even altered in the existing product, it will take into sweep of a new product. The case in hand, admittedly, the body was mounted on the chassis and thereafter, final bill was issued, which itself is a violation of the Form 3-A. The benefit of Form 3-A can be availed from the payment of purchase documents only in the event the terms & conditions thereon are satisfied. Necessary condition is required to be satisfied. More precisely, if the dealer wants a exemption against purchases on Form 3-A, it must sell the goods so purchased in the same form & condition. In other words, the requirement of the law is that the goods once sold to the registered dealer, must be sold in the same form and condition in which it had purchased the goods. 23. In the case in hand, it is admitted by the revisionist that final bill was issued after the body was mounted on the chassis, which were purchased against Form 3-A. Therefore, there is no doubt that the sale of chassis with mounted body made by the revisionist would be selling a product, which is in different condition from the chassis or the body and thus, the same would be liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
