COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX Vs. PRAKASH TUBES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated March 3, 1992 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench 2, Bareilly, Camp Haldwani.

(2.) The brief facts for disposal of this case are that the assessee was carrying the goods from Indore to Delhi with a form No. 34 on July 21, 1989. When the vehicle of the goods reached Saiya Check -post at Agra, the assessing authority inspected the document and seized the goods. It was pointed out by the assessee that he was carrying the goods from Indore to Delhi which are being carried to Indore to Kashipur via Delhi. The assessing authority observed that there was a cutting in the invoice and the place of destination had been shown as New Delhi in place of Kashipur. It is also admitted to the department that the assessee was having a form No. 34 along with the goods. The assessing authority did not accept the version of the assessee and the assessing authority imposed a penalty under Sec. 15(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 holding that the assessee had violated Sec. 28 -A. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the second appeal under Sec. 9 of the Sales Tax Act, which was allowed vide order dated February 27, 1991 by which the penalty imposed upon the assessee was quashed. The department feeling aggrieved by this preferred second appeal under Sec. 10 of the Sales Tax Act and the Tribunal also dismissed the said appeal vide its order dated March 3, 1992 on the ground that no attempt to evade the tax was made by the assessee in the matter and the assessee was entering into Delhi along with the goods in a vehicle having a valid form No. 34 under rule 87. It was further held that the provisions of the Sales Tax Act clearly provides that if the goods are being carried from outside of U.P. and also being taken to other State, i.e., outside the U.P. and the State of U.P. was intervening between the two States then form No. 34 is required for the transportation of the goods. It was further held by the first appellate authority that in case any goods was to carry from outside the U.P. to the U.P. in that case the form No. 31 is required and the assessee was also having a form No. 31 and form No. 34 at the time of inspection.

(3.) The department feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal preferred revision before this Court.