INTERNATIONAL STEEL TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order dated June 13, 2007 for the assessment year 1999 -2000 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has confirmed the penalty under Section 10A of the Act for the alleged default of Section 10(b) of the Act.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the applicant was registered under Section 7 of the Act for iron and steel and entitled to purchase iron and steel at the concessional rate after issuing form C. During the year under consideration, the dealer has purchased spring leaves (motor parts) from outside the State of U.P. for Rs. 3,49,443 and in respect thereof issued form C No. 978299. The assessing authority was of the view that applicant had issued form C for the purchases of spring leaves (motor parts) therefore there was a violation of clause (b) of Section 10 of the Act and accordingly issued show -cause notice. The applicant filed reply to the show -cause notice. In reply, it was pleaded that on January 18, 2000 the applicant had given an application through UPC for the addition of spring leaves and when the application could not be disposed of, another application had been given on October 30, 2001. The assessing authority had levied the penalty on the ground that the application dated January 18, 2000 claimed to have been given through UPC is not available on record and on the basis of the application dated October 30, 2001 spring leaves had been added in the registration certificate with effect from October 30, 2001. The assessing authority, in view of the above, was of the view that the applicant had issued form C while making the purchases, though it was not registered under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of spring leave (motor parts) and accordingly on the value of Rs. 3,49,443 penalty at Rs. 52,416 was levied.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal.