A trader challenged a total penalty reduction by the Tribunal. The High Court held that since tax was paid and no evasion intent existed, the Tribunal erred in maintaining the penalty under Section 13A(4).
Penalty proceedings under Section 13A(4) held unjustified and penalty immunised.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 16
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 11 of 2018
Applicant :- M/S Lohia Agencies Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Agarawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This revision is directed against an order passed by the Tribunal dated 11th December, 2017, whereby second appeal filed by the revisionist has been partially allowed and the penalty imposed has been reduced from Rs.32,800/- to Rs.19,680/-. The order is challenged on the ground that no penalty can be levied, inasmuch as tax on the washing machine apprehended had already been paid, and that assessment proceedings for the concerned period had already been finalized. It is also stated that machine has been sent as part of sales promotion by M/s Hindustan Lever Limited, and there was some defect for which it was being returned when detained. Submission is that all such facts have not been examined in correct perspective.
Learned Standing Counsel has supported the order for the reasons assigned therein.
I have heard Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri A.C. Tripathi appearing for the State, and have perused the materials brought on record.
It is not in issue that assessment proceedings vis-a-vis revisionist for the respective period had already been finalized. It is also not in issue that trade tax upon the washing machine apprehended had otherwise been paid. The revisionist is otherwise not a dealer engaged in sale and purchase of washing machine. In such circumstances, the plea of the revisionist that the machine had been sent as part of sales promotion of M/s Hindustan Lever Limited ought not to have been rejected since there is no intention appearing on record to evade payment of tax. Necessary ingredients to attract jurisdiction under Section 13A(4) of the Act was completely missing. The Tribunal therefore is not justified in maintaining imposition of penalty upon the revisionist. Question of law posed for consideration, therefore, is answered by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in invoking proceedings under Section 13-A(4) of the Act, in the facts of the present case.
Revision is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.1.2018 Anil
1 issue framed by the court
whether the Tribunal was justified in invoking penalty proceedings under Section 13A(4) of the Act when tax was already paid and no intention to evade payment appeared on record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Lohia Agencies
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
