SINGH TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This sales tax revision is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar dated May 10, 1989, passed in Second Appeal No. 601 of 1987. The revision arises from the penalty proceedings taken against the assessee under Section 15A(1)(h) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as it was then known, and now known as the U.P. Trade Tax Act (for short, "the Act").

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. M/s. Singh Traders at whose instance this revision has been filed, is a proprietary concern of one Jaswant Singh Chawala who was also the Manager of National Jute Corporation, a Government undertaking. The above two business establishments were independent of each other and separately registered under the Act. They were also issued Form 31 separately. It is the case of the assessee that Form 31 of both the firms were handed over to a common transporter at Delhi for their use for the imports of goods from outside the State by the respective firms. It is said, M/s. National Jute Corporation imported goods valuing Rs. 1,06,896/from Delhi. However, by an inadvertent mistake the Delhi transporter filled in the blank Form 31 belonging to M/s. Singh Traders for the transportation of goods of M/s. National Jute Corporation instead of utilising the correct Form 31 given by M/s. National Jute Corporation for that purpose. It is not in dispute that when the mistake was detected, the assessee immediately informed the Sales Tax Department about the same. At this stage penalty notices were issued, both to the assessee as well as to the National Jute Corporation. The latter was penalised under Clause (m) while the former (assessee) under Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 15A of the Act.

(3.) Both the firms appealed to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, the first appellate authority against their respective penalty orders. Penalty in the case of National Jute Corporation was let off on the ground that Form 31 of another firm came to be utilised due to human error. However in the case of assessee, though the quantum of penalty was reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- but the action for the imposition of penalty was affirmed on the finding that the assessee had misused Form 31 and, the declaration on Form 31 which was signed by the assessee was incorrect. Further appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the appellate authority was dismissed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. Feeling still aggrieved the assessee has preferred this revision.