COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX Vs. HUKUM CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow, feeling aggrieved by the order dated May 17, 1998 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal Bench, Dehradun, in Second Appeal No. 230 of 1992 (Assessment year 1991-92) (penalty) had filed the present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee-opposite party is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of lime. The coal is used as fuel by the assessee-opposite party. The application for issuing form XXXI, filed by the opposite party had been rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that the assessee-opposite party was in arrears of tax. The assessee had already placed the orders for coal to be sent by railway wagons. It took delivery of the said coal in order to avoid payment of heavy demurrage to the railways. When form XXXI was issued by the assessing authority to the assessee-opposite party, it filed the same before the concerned authority. However, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings under Section 15-A(l)(o) of the Act, and vide order dated March 6, 1992 imposed a sum of Rs. 23,215 as penalty. The said order had been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) in the first appeal filed by the assessee vide order dated May 30, 1992.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said order the assessing authority filed second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had set aside the penalty by holding that the import of coal has been duly recorded by the assessee in its books of accounts, which have been accepted. Further, there was no intention to evade any payment of tax as coal, which was only to be used as fuel by the assessee and was not meant for sale. The Tribunal also found that the assessee could not submit form XXXI while taking delivery of coal from the railways on account of the stand taken by the authority in not issuing form XXXI. Thus, no penalty was exigible. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are pure findings of fact, which are based on appreciation of evidence and material on record. It does not give rise to any question of law, which requires to be decided by this Court under Section 11 of the Act.