Point of Law : Once the documents were produced before passing of the seizure order, it cannot be said that the revisionist had any intention to evade payment of tax or made any contravention of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, counsel for the revisionist and Sri Manu Ghildyal, Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench 1, Kanpur in Second Appeal No. 238 of 2006 (M/s Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Trade Tax, Kanpur) for the assessment year 2004-2005 arising out of penalty proceedings initiated under Section 15-A(1)(o) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1948") in which following questions of law have been raised :

"(1) Whether, the penalty of Rs. 4.00 lacs imposed and sustained against the applicant is wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act, 1948 ?

(2) Whether, the penalty imposed on the applicant under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act, 1948 is wholly perverse, arbitrary and excessive ?"

3. Sri Aditya Pandey, counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a Public Limited Company and engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of tooth paste, tooth powder, tooth brush and cosmetics etc. The revisionist used to send its goods from the place of factory to its various branches situated all over the country. He further submits that 926 cartoons of colgate tooth powder were dispatched from Aurangabad Warehouse to its Kanpur Warehouse as a stock transfer along with which all requisite documents were accompanied. The goods while coming to Kanpur passed through various States and before passing the State of Madhya Pradesh all documents were produced at the entry exit check-post and were duly endorsed. When the goods reached the State of Uttar Pradesh at Raksa check-post at Jhansi, the driver of the truck in question handed over all the documents for filling up the trip-sheet (Behti) in accordance with Section 28-A of the Act, 1948 to the agent. In the truck, some goods of M/s LML Limited, Kanpur was also there. Due to the inadvertent mistake of the broker/munshi/dalal at the check-post only details of goods of M/s LML Limited, Kanpur was filled. On the said basis, the check post authorities detained the goods and issued the show cause notice. Immediately on being noticed all documents of the revisionist goods such as Invoice, Form 31, Transport G.R., Way Bill etc. were produced before passing of seizure / penalty order but the same was not accepted and the seizure order was passed estimating the value of goods of Rs. 10 lacs and demanded the security for the release of the goods of Rs. 3 lacs. The security amount was reduced to Rs. 1.5 lacs by order dated 10.02.2005. Thereafter, the penalty proceedings were initiated against the revisionist under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act, 1948 and by order dated 4.8.2005, the penalty of Rs. 4 lacs was imposed. Against the said order, the revisionist preferred a first appeal and by order dated 21.06.2006, the same was confirmed and the same was affirmed by the impugned tribunal order.

4. Sri. Aditya Pandey, counsel for the revisionist submits that action to impose penalty is not justified as the goods in question were duly accompanying all relevant documents as mentioned in Section 28-A of the Act, 1948. Moreover, the same was produced before passing of the seizure order along with the reply to the show cause notice. He further submits that if the documents are produced before passing of the seizure, there was no contravention of the provision of Section 28A of the Act. Hence the prayers for quashing of the penalty.

5. Learned Standing Counsel supports the order passed by the authorities below. He further submits that at the time of submission of trip-sheet (Behti), no documents whatsoever were produced. On the physical verification, the goods of the revisionist were found in Truck No. HR/55B7590 and in the trip-sheet (Behti) only goods of M/s LML Limited, Kanpur were disclosed and therefore the seizure as well as penalty order were justified.

6. The Court has perused the record.

7. A