Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision has been filed under section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, against the judgment and order dated September 3, 2009 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal Lucknow, in Second Appeal No. 101 of 2009, for the assessment year 2008 -09, where the penalty levied under section 54(1)(14) of the VAT Act, was cancelled. The brief facts of the case are that during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in trading of the grocery, dry foods, coconut, etc. On August 2, 2008, truck bearing No. A.P. 07/T.U.7529 belonged to the assessee was intercepted by the Department. On checking, it was found that the declaration form pertaining to the import was blank. So, the assessing officer has levied the penalty under section 54(1)(14) of the VAT Act for Rs. 2,36,000. The same was confirmed by the first appellate authority. However, the Tribunal has cancelled the said penalty. Being aggrieved, the Department has knocked the door of this court by way of filing the present revision.
(2.) WITH this background, heard Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned counsel for the Department and Sri Tarun Tandon, learned counsel for the assessee. After hearing both the parries and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the instant case, the truck was started on July 27, 2008 from Andhra Pradesh to U.P. It is an undisputed fact that from August 1, 2008, the check -post in U.P. was abolished. Prior to it, there was a practice that the declaration form pertaining to the import was to be filled up at the check -post with the help of the officer concerned. So, the truck driver was carrying the blank declaration form with him. When he reached to the check -post of U.P. no assistance/officer was available to fill up the declaration form. So, he moved towards his destination. In the meantime, his vehicle was intercepted. Except the declaration form, all the documents were found in order. There was no concealment of the sale or goods. The blank form was available with the truck driver, but due to change circumstances, which were beyond his control, neither there was any mala fide intention nor any concealment on the part of the assessee. Therefore, by keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income -tax : [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC) : JT 2012 (10) SC 523, there was no justification for levy of the penalty.
(3.) IN view of above, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the same is sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. In the result, the revision filed by the Department is hereby dismissed.;