- (1.) The present revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated December 17, 2003 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 273 of 2001, for the assessment year 1998-99 (penalty). The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is a partnership firm, who engaged in the business of executing civil contracts. The firm is duly registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The revisionist had opted for compounding scheme for the payment of composition fee in lieu of trade tax under section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, for civil contractors for the assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000. The compounding scheme was also accepted by the assessing authority for the assessment year under consideration, i.e., 1998-99 as he has passed the assessment order under section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act on March 24, 2001 and levied the composition fee at one per cent, as provided in the official circular letter dated July 23, 1996.
(2.) During the assessment year under consideration, the revisionist made purchases for the various materials from the U.P. as well as from outside the U.P. From the outside U.P., the goods were purchased for Rs. 13,46,945.46. The assessing officer after giving the notice, opined that 57 forms for import of the goods were not shown at the check-posts and no inspection or verification was held at the check-posts. The revisionist has also not informed the Department about the use of the said declaration forms. So, it is the violation of section 28A. Finally, he levied a penalty of Rs. 5,38,778 under section 15A(1)(o) of the Trade Tax Act. The same was confirmed not only by the first appellate authority but also by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the revisionist has filed the present revision.
(3.) This court vide an interim order dated April 8, 2004 has granted the stay on the penalty of amount.;