Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Assessee and learned standing counsel for the State.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed by the Assessee under Section of the U. P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 2002 -03 against the order of the Tribunal dated March 28, 2006 by which it has confirmed the penalty imposed on the Assessee under Section 15A(1) (o) of the Act. The questions of law framed are hereunder: (1) Whether in view of the judgments of this honourable court in the case of Network Limited, Noida v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in, (1999) UPTC 750, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaipur Golder Transport Co. reported in, (1999) UPTC 1167, Central Footwear, Varanasi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in, (2003) 22 NTN 238 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Micro Foam Industries Limited reported in, (2003) STI 251, the imposition of penalty is justified ? (2) Whether form XXXI having been filed along with the reply to show -cause notice before the seizure, the levy of penalty is justified ? (3) Whether in view of the judgments of this honourable court in the case of Kalyan Plastic Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, (1993) UPTC 1366, DCM Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in, (1993) UPTC 1212, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Garg Associates Pvt. Limited reported in, (1993) UPTC 79, WIMCO Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in, (1993) UPTC 148, the imposition of penalty is justified ? (4) Where the Applicant has imported the goods as raw material and not meant for resale, the imposition of penalty is justified ? Where the Applicant has imported the goods against form C and the relevant entries are duly made in the books of accounts of the Applicant, still the imposition of penalty is justified ? (5) Where the goods are being imported through bank, the authorities were justified in imposing the penalty ? (6) Whether in any view of the matter, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,27,206 is justified ? (7) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is justified ? The facts of the case are that the Assessee had placed a purchase order on January 7, 2003 on one ESSAR Steels Limited, New Delhi, for supply of H. R. coils. The Assessee is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at B. 30, sector 57, NOIDA.
(3.) THUS , the raw materials have been brought in from Delhi to NOIDA. It was a requirement that the raw material should have been accompanied with form XXXI. It is the Assessee's case that he has sent ten forms XXXI in compliance with the purchase order. However, on January 29, 2003 the raw material was found to be not supported by any form XXXI.;