S.G. EXPRESS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Assessee is a transporter. He has filed this revision against the order of the Tribunal dated August 2, 2006 passed in Second Appeal No. 134 of 2006, Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. v. S.G. Express, Vishnu Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Sahadara, Delhi whereby the Tribunal after setting aside the order of the first appellate authority allowed the appeal and upheld the penalty of Rs. 80,000 imposed by the assessing authority in exercise of the power under Section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act").

(2.) The dispute of penalty relates to assessment year 2005-06. The Assessee was transporting 1,026 suit cases allegedly from Delhi to Guwahati vide trucks No. HR 55 B/3185 and DEL IE/3625. He produced the relevant documents at the central check-post, T.P. Nagar, Ghaziabad, showing the name of the consignor as Ashish Attachi Centre, 12/6, Mangolpuri, Delhi, and insisted for issuance of the necessary transit form 34 in accordance with Section 28B of the Act. The officer-in-charge of the check-post instead of issuing transit form detained the goods on the ground that the consignor as disclosed in the documents produced is fake and non-existent. The goods so seized were directed to be released on furnishing security of Rs. 80,000. On second appeal to the Tribunal, though the seizure was upheld but the security was reduced to Rs. 20,000. The Assessee on furnishing security and on release of the goods applied for transit form whereupon Transit Pass No. 2859 dated September 8, 2005 was issued by the officer-in-charge of the check-post after due verification of the documents which were found to be proper and in order. The Assessee surrendered the aforesaid transit pass at the exist check-post while leaving U.P. on September 8, 2005. Even though the Assessee was issued a transit pass which he had validly submitted at the exit check-post, penalty proceedings under Section 13A(4) of the Act were drawn against him and a penalty of Rs. 80,000 was imposed. The said penalty order on appeal was set aside by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad vide order dated February 15, 2006. However, on the second appeal preferred by the Department, the penalty order has been restored. Thus, this revision under Section 11 of the Act has been preferred by the Assessee.

(3.) I have heard Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned Counsel for the Assessee and Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel for the Respondents.