COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX Vs. LUCKNOW BANDA TRANSPORT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 28.10.1996 by which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal for the assessment year 1994-95 and quashed the penalty under Section 15-A (1) (o).

(2.) The brief facts of the cast giving rise to the present revision are that on 26.12.1994, opposite party was found transporting 125 bags of Haldi and 118 bags of Supari in Vehicle No. MP-20/0214. At the time of road checking at Sindwari Belaghat Road by the Trade Tax Officer, driver of the Vehicle could rot produce any documents relating to goods However, documents relating to the goods were submitted subsequently and was explained that both the aforesaid goods have been imported from outside the State of U.P. against declaration Form which were duly passed at Sitapur Check Post on 25.12.1994 and thereafter, from Banda Godown, goods was being transported to Kanpur. The officer concerned found that the documents which were submitted related to 125 bags of Haldi and 121 bags of Supari while only 125 bags Haldi and 118 bags of Supari were found. Though, the opposite party explained that three bags out of 121 bags inadvertently left at Banda. but the authority concern had not accepted the plea of dealer and had seized 118 bags of Supari. However, 125 bags of Haldi were released. Against the seizure order, opposite party filed application under the proviso of Section 13-A (6) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. Check Post which was rejected. Thereafter opposite party filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the seizure order. In pursuance of seizure, Assessing Authority levied penalty under Section 15-A (1) (o). First Appeal filed by the opposite party was rejected. Opposite party tiled Second Appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed. Tribunal held that with regard to the shortage of three bags of Supari, Tribunal has accepted the explanation of the opposite party and quashed the seizure. Tribunal further held that there was no jusification to levy penalty on the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) Heard Counsel for the parties.