Intention to evade tax must be established for imposing penalties under tax laws; previous acceptance of similar submissions indicates no intent to evade.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Sri. Pradeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri. Sanjay Sharim, learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party.

2. By means of instant revision, the revisionist has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-I, Lucknow; whereby the tribunal has dismissed the Second Appeal No.263 of 2013 preferred by the Revisionist in respect of the Assessment Year 2009-10 and upheld the penalty under Section 54(1) (14) of the U.P. VAT Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is a registered dealer and having its factory at Sonipat, Haryana from where, in the normal course of business, the goods were being imported after due compliance of provisions of the Act. The goods in question were accompanied with all proper documents, invoices and G.R. Form-38. Since the new system for downloading the Form-38 from the official website of the Commercial Tax Department (for short 'the department') was introduced, the revisionist was no knowledge and awareness about the same and due to lack of knowledge and practice instead of downloading the form and taking the print, he took the screenshot. Further, Prior to it also, Form -38, which was taken as screenshot, were submitted with the department with regard to it, no adverse view was taken, but in the case in hand, Form- 38 No.00015117 was also accompanied with the goods, which was taken as screenshot, when goods were intercepted at Kanpur and the same were seized only on the same ground to which the revisionist submitted reply in which he tried to explain the conduct, but in vain. The proceedings of penalty were initiated and the penalty order was passed imposing the penalty of Rs. 72, 400/- against which the first appeal was preferred, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2012 against which, Second Appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the goods in question were duly accompanied with all proper and necessary documents except the Form-38, which was taken as screenshot instead of printing the same from the official website of the department and apart from this, there was no discrepancy in the record, quality and quantity of the goods in question. He further submits that there was no intention of the revisionist to evade payment of tax to the State Government, hence the penalty could not be imposed upon the revisionist. He further submits that the goods in question were coming in State of U.P. as a stock of transfer from its manufacturing unit i.e. from Sonipat, Haryana to Lucknow.

5. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgements of this Court passed in the cases of M/s S.B. Enterprises v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2022 U.P.T.C.[Vol.111] 892 and Protein Impax Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow, (2022F) 49 VLJ 1 (Mad.) by submitting that while imposing the penalty, not a single word has been whispered by the authorities that there was intention of the revisionist to evade payment of tax. He prays for allowing the present revision.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel support the impugned order by submitting that the goods in question were intercepted on 11.11.2009 but the entries were made after 9 days i.e. on 20.11.2009, which shows the intention of the revisionist to evade from paying the tax and in the event, the goods in question were not intercepted, the revisionist would have not paid the legitimate tax to the State- Government. He further submits that the intention was of the revisionist to evade payment of tax is very much clear. He prays for dismissal of this revision.

7. The Court has perused the records.

8. Admittedly, the goods in question were being sent from the factory of the revisionist i.e. Sonipat, Haryana to Lucknow, which were accompanied with four invoice