ANNAPURNA TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this commercial tax revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dtd. 3/9/2013, passed by the second Appellate Authority i.e. the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand (Haldwani Bench) in Second Appeal No. 69 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) dtd. 23/8/2013.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the revisionist is a trader; he was importing 30.78 quintal sesame oil on 31/7/2013 by vehicle no. DL1LR-7511 from KNG Agro Food Pvt. Ltd., Sonepat, Haryana. It is further claimed that all the requisite documents, as required under the prevailing law were with the goods. Along with the goods Form no. 16, import declaration no. UK VAT-K2010-1704801, Form VAT-D3-1031732 issued by the Commercial Tax Department, Haryana State, and different bills and transit passes which were issued by the authorities authorizing the applicant to cross the State of U.P. and trip sheet (form no. 18) dtd. 31/7/2013 were with the goods. The revisionist was bringing the goods for his business purposes. He was accompanied with Form No. 16 which was issued by the Assessing Authority on 8/1/2013. It is further contended that each and every column of Form No. 16, as required under the law, was duly filled by the assessee. On 31/7/2013, the goods were intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile squad) Rudrapur, and the goods were detained and detention memo was prepared for the purpose of verification. The revisionist submitted before him all the documents including Form No. 16, importing declaration and other documents. In spite of filing of such documents, the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad) issued show cause to the revisionist as to why the applicant used Form No. 16 of series no. 2010 which was held by the Commissioner as obsolete and in the transit mentioning Form No. 17. The revisionist submitted before the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad) Rudrapur that it was inadvertent mistake that the revisionist imported the goods against Form No. 16 which was declared by the Commissioner as obsolete and the mentioning of Form No. 17 in place of Form No. 16 was the mistake of cyber cafe where the revisionist had submitted the online declaration. However, the Assistant Commissioner vide order dtd. 4/8/2013 seized the goods and demanded Rs.30,8,770.00 as security for release of the goods.

(3.) At the outset, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist would argue that this is a covered matter, decided by the Single Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Castrol India Limited and Anr. vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, 2012 NTN (Vol. 49)-202 wherein the Court has held as follows:-