COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX Vs. PACKAGING INNOVATORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated July 14, 2004 relating to the assessment year 2003 -2004.

(2.) DEALER /opposite party (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Dealer') was carrying on the business of ink. One of the consignment loaded in vehicle No. U. P. 78 -N/6152 was checked by the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Kanpur on January 1, 2003. On checking, two challan Nos. 1145 and 1444 dated January 1, 2003 were produced. On verification it was found that in the challans, registration number was printed in six digits. The serial number was stamped and there was a difference in the number. On these facts, the genuineness of the challans was doubted. A show -cause notice was issued asking the dealer to produce the books of account for verification. Dealer could not produce the challan book for verification and submitted that it was lost. The Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Kanpur seized the goods and subsequently released on furnishing of security at Rs. 13,280. In pursuance of the seizure of the goods, a penalty proceeding under Section 13A(3) of the Act was initiated. Before the assessing authority, again the books of account were not produced for verification. It was told that the challan book was lost and other documents have also not been produced. In the circumstances, the assessing authority levied the penalty at Rs. 33,200. First appeal filed by the dealer was rejected. It appears that before the first appellate authority, dealer has produced the challan book. From the perusal of challan book and the challans which were seized at the time of inspection, the first appellate authority found that there was a difference, therefore, penalty order has been confirmed. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty by the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the difference was minor.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted that the dealer admitted that by printing mistake, registration number was wrongly printed and when the challans were doubted, challan book was not produced for verification. Even, before the assessing authority, challan book and other books of account were not produced for verification. The challan book was produced for the first time before the appellate authority and the appellate authority held that there was a difference in the seized challans and the carbon copies of the challan book. He submitted that though, the Tribunal observed that the copies of the challans and the challan book were not available before it, still the Tribunal held that the difference was minor. Learned Counsel for the dealer submitted that the difference stated by the first appellate authority, has been held minor and the findings of the Tribunal is the finding of fact, therefore, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.