COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Vs. SHAKTI CEMENT AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. (applicant) and Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned Counsel on behalf of the opposite party -dealer.

(2.) THIS trade tax revision has been filed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") against the judgment and order dated August 28, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench -I, Gorakhpur, in Second Appeal No. 549 of 1999, arising out of penalty proceedings under Section 13A(4) of the Act relating to the assessment year 1995 -96. The questions of law sought to be raised are as follows:

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri Krishna Agrawal, leaned counsel for the dealer, has submitted that for imposing penalty under Section 13A(4) of the Act, it was necessary for the authorities to record a finding that the goods did not relate to the dealer or to any registered dealer as otherwise they could always be included in the turnover of the dealer or such other dealer. According to him, Shakti Cement Agency, Gorakhpur dealer in the present case, had accepted that it had booked the goods for sale to Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta at Mahrajganj.