COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Vs. J.J. ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though there is delay of 30 days in filing the revision as reported by the stamp reporter but in view of the fact that the revision has been admitted vide order dated August 29, 2000 the delay stands condoned. The revision is therefore being heard.

(2.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel and Sri S. D. Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party -dealer.

(3.) TRUCK No. U. P. 07/1686 was inspected by the trade tax authority in which 132 plastic bags along with form XXXI were found. In addition to that 12 bundles of tin plates were also found on the vehicle for which no papers were available with the driver. On the basis of the statement given by the driver, the said goods were seized and notice under Section 28A of the Act Was issued. The dealer appeared and thereafter took up a defence that by mistake relevant papers had been left at the office of the transporter. 12 bundles of tin plates were in fact its own raw material which was being transported to the factory site to be utilised for manufacturing of tin boxes. The assessing officer found the violation of the provisions of Section 28A of the Act and that there was intention to evade tax and accordingly, imposed penalty equivalent to 40 per cent of the value of the goods. Upon appeal by the dealer, the Assistant Commissioner judicial) by order dated December 27, 1995 held that even though there was violation of the provisions contained in Section 28A of the Act but at the same time recorded a finding that there was no intention on the part of the dealer to evade any tax for the reason that the goods which were seized, i.e., 12 bundles of tin plates were undisputedly raw material to be used by the dealer in manufacturing of tin boxes. It, accordingly, allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty.