COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX Vs. SHAMBHU DAYAL AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 26.12.1996 for the assessment year 1985-1986. Revision No. 354 of 1997 arises from the order under Section 22 of the Act and revision No. 359 of 1997 arises from the penalty proceedings under Section 15-A(1)(c) of the Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that it appears that at the time of assessment proceedings dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") had filed the list of purchase of food grains showing the purchases from Kachcha Arhati at Rs. 54,02,882.62p. and the purchase of oil seed from Kachcha Arhati at Rs. 12,43,777.79p. Subsequently, it was found that the total amount shown in the list was wrong and it should be at Rs. 61,97,799.11p. for food gain and Rs. 12,55,628.35p. for oil seed. When this mistake was detected, notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued. However, no order was passed under Section 21 of the Act. Subsequently, an order under Section 22 of the Act was passed rectifying the assessment order. Penalty proceeding under Section 15-A(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated on the ground that the dealer has furnished inaccurate particulars relating to the purchases. Matter went to the Tribunal in appeal. Tribunal set aside the order passed under Section 21 of the Act. Subsequently, an order under Section 22 of the act was passed rectifying the assessment order. Penalty proceeding under Section 15-A(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated on the ground that the dealer has furnished inaccurate particulars relating to the purchases. Matter went to the Tribunal in appeal. Tribunal set aside the order passed under Section 21 of the Act on the ground that once the notice under Section 21 of the Act was initiated, the assessment order ceased to existence and could not be rectified under Section 22 of the Act relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kundan Lal Sri Kishan Mathur (U.P.) v. CST, U.P. and Anr. reported in 1987 UPTC, 404. Tribunal also set aside the penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that under Section 15-A(1)(c) of the Act penalty could be levied only for the concealment of the turn over.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.