TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not Liable for levy of Sales tax and therefore it cannot be said that there was any intention to evade tax. The revenue has also not denied that the revisionist had produces From - 38 Issued by the Excise and Taxation department Punjab, or that the goods were not being transferred as measure of Stock Transfer, and there is no other material or any reason to come to a conclusion that there was any intention to evade tax. Merely because the Column 6 of Form - 38 was blank the penalty has been imposed despite the fact that there is no other material to show that there was any intention to evade tax and therefore the findings recorded in the penalty order as well as the in impugned appellate order are clearly perverse and contrary to recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaining to assessment year 2008-09, whereby appeal of the revisionist has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is a registered company under the Act, 2008 and engages in the trading of medicines. In the course of business revisionist import the medicines from outside the State of U.P. On 03.09.2008, vehicle No. HR 04 N 0193 which was going from Zirakpur, Mohali to Lucknow was intercepted by Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax (Mobile Unit)-III, Kanpur and inspection was carried out. During the course of inspection, it was found that the revisionist is transporting the consignment of medicines said to be stock transfer along with incompletely filled Declaration form in Form No.38 No. AA-829195. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I. Whether in facts circumstances of present case, judgment Order dated 27.4.2012 passed by Ld. VAT Tribunal, Commercial Tax, Lucknow imposing/upholding Penalty upon Petitioner is perverse, illegal erroneous in law fact. II. Whether in facts circumstances of present case, judgment Order dated 27.4.2012 passed by Ld. VAT Tribunal, Commercial Tax, Lucknow imposing/upholding Penalty upon Petitioner is contrary to mandate of Section 54 of UP Value Added Tax Act, 2008. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the revisionist that truck carrying the said goods were intercepted and all the documents were inspected, where it was found that the truck was carrying Form - 38 wherein the details of the goods such as the quantity, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here should be an intention to evade tax and merely because one column in Form - 38 is kept blank cannot be a reason in itself to levy penalty without a clear recording of satisfaction that the same is with the intention to evade tax. 10. Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, Standing counsel appearing for the revenue has supported the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal and stated that mandate of the provisions under Section 50 of the Act applies to all the goods except the goods named and described in Schedule I. Non mentioning of challan number or invoice number in Column-6 of Form No. 38 lead to an inference that in case of non-checking of goods, the said declaration form may be used for any other consignment of a similar quantity, quality, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded a finding of fact that there was no intention to evade payment of tax, same cannot be interfered with in revision under Section 58 of the Act, 2008 provided the finding is perverse or it is based on consideration of irrelevant material or non consideration of relevant material. 13. The aforesaid judgment has been relied upon by another bench of the Allahabad high court in the case of M/S Protein Impax Pvt Ltd vs The commissioner of commercial tax up Lucknow 2022 [3) TMI 859. 14. The case of Multitex Filtration Engineering Ltd., Noida vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow 2009 NTN (Vol. 40) 389 is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case where the goods were being transferred for stock tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
