M/S SUMAN TEXTILES (OLD NAME) NEW NAME M/S SUMAN INDUSTRIES Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against the order dated 7 June 2006 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-I, Meerut, in Second Appeal No. 135/, under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

(2.) The revisionist dealer against two bilty number imported seven bundles of Cotton Newar, which was intercepted on the check post, upon inspecting the goods, a show cause notice was issued to the revisionist. In response to the show cause notice, revisionist submitted Form-31 and appended the bilty. The transactions of the goods were recorded in the declaration. The explanation, however, was not accepted for the reason that under the garb of exempted goods, Cotton Tape was being imported without declaration, which is taxable. Consequently, maximum penalty at 40% of the value of goods was determined imposing Rs. 30,000/- towards penalty. Aggrieved, revisionist filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Trade Tax, Meerut, which was allowed by the order dated 5 May 2001 by recording categorical finding that since Form- 31 was produced in reply to the show cause notice, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention to evade the tax. Reliance was placed on the circular of the Commissioner dated 25 May 1994, to record that where Form-31 was produced before the goods was taken out, neither security nor composition amount would be charged from the dealer, nor penalty can be imposed. Revenue preferred second appeal which has been allowed, thus, restoring the penalty passed by the Trade Tax Officer, Meerut.

(3.) Learned Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the bilties recorded the goods i.e. Cotton Newar which is exempted from tax, whereas, in garb thereof, Cotton Tape, which is taxable was imported. Therefore, under the garb of false declaration made in the documents, attempt was being made to import taxable goods. Further, destination of the goods was wrongly mentioned, therefore, it was held that it is violation of Section 21-A of the Act.