Dismissed
M/S Friends Automobiles Sumersager v. the Commissioner Trade Tax U.P.
Allahabad HCSTRE/2053/2007
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 2053…
What the court decided
AI extract
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 2053…
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. - 5
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 2053 of 2007
Applicant :- M/S Friends Automobiles Sumersager Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- N.R.Kumar,Vishwjeet Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Vishwajeet, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the Commissioner.
The questions of law, which have been formulated in the memo of revision reads as under :
" 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the instant case the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to confirm the imposition of penalty under Section 13-A(4) merely on the basis of presumption, surmises and doubts, while the consignments in question were found belonging to a bonafide registered dealer and duly entered in the regular books of accounts ?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the present case the Tribunal was legally justified to allow the penalty in part while the seizure made by the Mobile Squad was merely on the doubts without making any inquiry, to infer that the entries of the bills relating to consignments in question were not entered in the regular books of accounts ?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to confirm the penalty without considering the explanation offered by the applicant and there is no material to infer that the goods in question without cash memos which are issued on 8.11.2003 and they are duly entered in accounts books accordingly ?"
This revision arises from the Tribunal's order dated 9.4.2007 relating to the assessment year 2003-04 under section 13-A(4) of U.P. Trade Tax Act.
The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist has affected the sale of certain motor parts against eight bills issued on 8.11.2003. During the course of inspection and inquiry 30 cartons were found other than the goods covered against invoices. The inspecting authority has passed a seizure order valuing the goods at Rs.1,20,000/- on which the security to the extent of Rs.28,800/- was demanded, which was deposited by the revisionist and the goods were released .
Penalty proceeding under section 13-A (4) were initiated and the security amount was converted as penalty vide order dated 16.8.2005.
The revisionist filed an appeal under section 9 before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Gorakhpur. The appeal of the revisionist was rejected and the order of the penalty was confirmed. Against the order passed by the first appellate authority the second appeal was filed before the Tribunal, which was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 9th April 2007. The Tribunal has examined the claim of the revisionist and has reduced the liability of penalty from Rs.28,800/- to Rs.18,000/-.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the authorities below as well as the impugned order of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has examined the issue in detail and has arrived at a conclusion that the revisionist did not adduce any evidence to support its claim. In view of the aforesaid, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal in part seeing the nature of the case and value of the goods, which was taken into consideration by the assessing authority at Rs.1,20,000/- which includes the goods covered against the invoices issued by the revisionist.
In view of the aforesaid, the finding recorded by the Tribunal are finding of fact and nothing could be shown to demonstrate that the said finding is perverse or contrary to the record or is otherwise not in accordance with law.
In view thereof, the aforesaid questions are answered against the assessee. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.4.2019 S.S.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S Friends Automobiles Sumersager
Ashok Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court