1

Reserved On: 09.11.2021

Delivered On:05.01.2022

Court No. - 1

Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 970 of 2010

Revisionist :- M/S Commercial Autosales Pvt. Ltd.

Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Agarwal

Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

WITH

Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 343 of 2013

Revisionist :- M/S Commercial Auto Sales P Ltd.

Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Commercial Tax

Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Agrawal

Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

1.

Heard Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and

Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite

party.

2.

These two revisions were listed together as the issue involved are

interlinked and therefore, the same are being decided by the

common order.

SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 970 of 2010

3.

The present revision has been filed against the order dated

18.09.2010 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Allahabad in

Second Appeal No. 120 of 2010 for the assessment year 2005-06.

4.

The following questions of law have been framed in the present

revision:-

(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was

legally justified in confirming the levy of penalty U/s 15 A (1) (o) of

UP Trade Tax Act in spite of the fact that there was no intention to

2

evade payment of tax?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the

Tribunal was legally justified in sustaining the penalty, inasmuch

as, Form -31 has been produced before the seizure order and the

transaction is recorded in the books of account of both consignee

and consignor?

(iii) Whether, the Tribunal was legally justified in levying the

penalty at a so excessive rate?

5.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is an authorized

dealer of Tata Motors Limited and engaged in the business of sale

of Tata vehicles and chassis etc. The revisionist purchases chassis

against Form 3 A as prescribed under UP Trade Tax Act. In the

disputed year, the applicant, after purchase of chassis against

Form 3 A from Tata Motors Limited Lucknow and send the same

to M/s. CBECCO Limited, Jabalpur to mount body on the said

chassis. After the body was mounted on chassis, the sale were

made to the respected buyers raising the bill. On 27.1.2006, 04

dumpers were intercepted by the Mobile Squad and it was found

that only Bill No. 932 dated 25.1.2006 was available along with

the drivers of 04 dumpers but no Form 31 or 32 was found along

with the goods. The said goods were seized and security of Rs.

19,31,400/- was demanded for release of vehicles which was

modified at Rs. 9,66,000/- out of which Rs. 4,00000/- were

deposited in cash and for balance amount of Rs. 5,66,000/- bank

guarantee was furnished for release of the goods. Thereafter the

penalty proceeding under U/s 15 A (1) (o) of UP Trade Tax Act,

was initiated and penalty of Rs. 19,31,400/- was imposed, which

was reduced to Rs. 4,38,400/- on appeal against which cross

appeals were filed before the Tribunal which were dismissed.

Hence the present revision has been filed by the appellant.

6.

Counsel for the revisionist submits that after purchase of chassis,

the same was sent to Jabalpur for mounting the body over it and

thereafter the same was coming back for which Form 31 was

3

given but due to human error of the Driver, the same was left at

Jabalpur and was not accompanying with the goods. He further

submitted that for mounting the body, Form C as contemplated

under Central Sales Tax Act has been issued by the revisionist

and therefore lower rate was charged by the body builder i.e. 4 %.

He further submits that transactions were duly entered in the

books of account, the ownership of the vehicle remained with the

revisionist as clear from as Ground No. 3 as taken before the 1^st

appellate authority as well as the Tribunal and Form 31 was duly

submitted therefore there was no intention to avoid any