Technical discrepancies in documentation do not justify penalties if there is no evidence of intent to evade tax, as all required documents were present.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Mr. Sundeep Agarwal for the revisionist and Mr. B.K. Pandey, learned A.C.S.C. for the opposite party.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 29.8.2022 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad in Second Appeal No. 215 of 2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) and the order dated 31.1.2021 passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade-II, Ghaziabad in Appeal No. GHA2/0043/2019 (2015-16) arising out of penalty proceedings under Section 54 of UP VAT Act.

3. The present revision has been admitted on 5.1.2023 on the following substantial question of law:-

" Whether the authorities below were justified in levying penalty on the revisionist, when he has no intention to evade the payment of tax?"

4. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is a registered proprietorship concerned and engaged in the trading of food grains and spices. The revisionist in the normal course of business purchased chilly seeds from M/s Cauvery Chilies Prakash Nagar Khammam, Telangana. The said goods were accompanying with the tax invoices, G.R. and form 38. However, the goods in question were intercepted and at the time of inspection, it was found that in form 38 the word 'and seeds' were mentioned instead of 'chilli seeds' and on that ground the goods were seized and demand of security to the tune of Rs. 1,98,750/- was made and on deposit of the same the goods were released. Thereafter the revisionist has preferred first appeal against the penalty order dated 16.8.2018 which was rejected by order dated 31.1.2021 and thereafter second appeal was preferred, which was also rejected by the impugned order dated 29.8.2022. Hence the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that goods in question were accompanying with all required documents and form 38 was send to the selling dealer and same was filed by the selling dealer and there was no discrepancy in the form with regard to quality and quantity of the goods in question but due to inadvertence the word 'and seeds' was mentioned instead of 'chilli seeds'. He submits that the said discrepancy can be attributed to the selling dealer and not to the revisionist as the revisionist has already send his form 38 to the seller. He further submits that the authorities below, on the presumption that form 38 can be re-used as the same was filled with magical ink which can be vanished on high temperature, had seized the goods in question. He further submits that it is nobody's case that the goods were not accompanying with all required documents along with form 38. He further submits that on identical set of fact this Court has dismissed the revision filed by the State vide order dated 9.1.2020 passed in Sales / Trade Tax Revision No. 5 of 2020 as such he prays for allowing the present revision.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned order and submits that in the event the goods were not intercepted and seized, the dealer can re-use the said form and evade the tax liability. He prays for dismissing the present revision.

7. The Court has perused the records.

8. Admittedly, the goods were intercepted during transportation from State of Telangana to Ghaziabad, U.P. and at the time of interception the goods were accompanying with all required documents along with form 38. The purpose of form 38 is that the department should know that the goods are being imported from one State to another State. Some defects were pointed out by the department i.e. the name of the goods was not properly mentioned in form 38 and the allegation was made that the form w