Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) IN all these revisions, which have arisen from the orders of Tribunal, since common questions of law have been raised, pressed and argued, therefore, all are being decided by this common judgment. Heard Sri. Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri. Shubham Agrawal, Advocate, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Revenue and perused the record.
(2.) FOLLOWING three questions of law have been formulated by revisionist -assessee (hereinafter referred to as "assessee") which are required to be answered by this Court: i. Whether any penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2008") can be levied on the basis of Column No. 6 of Form 38 being left blank, when goods were accompanied with Tax invoice, G.R. bearing Bill number and date, and the entries required to be made in the Form 38 could have been ascertained from the accompanying documents itself? ii. Whether penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of Act, 2008 can be imposed in "absence of intention to evade tax", in the teeth of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Rama Pulses v. State of U.P. & others,, VSTI 2009 B -1034? iii. Whether penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of Act, 2008 can be imposed merely for non filling of Column No. 6 of Form 38? iv. Whether leaving Column 6 of Form 38 can be said to be a contravention of Section 50 or Section 51 of the Act, 2008? It is contended that goods were accompanied by tax invoice, G.R./Bilty of transporter and Form 38. Though, it is true that Column 6 in Form 38 was not filled in and left blank, but that was not fault on the part of assessee, for the reason that Form 38 was filled in, either by sender of goods or transporter himself and for their fault, assessee cannot be held responsible. It is further contended that goods and its description could have been verified with invoice and transporter's bilty, hence, there could not have any occasion for evasion of tax and this fact itself is sufficient to deny respondents any occasion to impose penalty upon assessee. It is lastly contended that mere non filling of Column 6 in Form 38 issued to the dealer will not justify imposition of penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of Act, 2008 at it cannot be construed as a violation of Section 50 or 51 of Act, 2008. Reliance is placed in this regard on several authorities of this Court and it is contended that these authorities were also cited before Tribunal but it has failed to look into those authorities and for this reason also Tribunal's judgment is liable to be set aside.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel, on the contrary, submitted that Tribunal, in a detailed manner, has discussed modus operandi, in which From 38 issued to assessee, could have been used repeatedly, in respect to various different transactions, if Column 6 is left blank, hence keeping Column 6 blank in Form 38, was a deliberate act on the part of assessee, and not a clerical mistake or indeliberate or unintentional error on the part of transporter or sender of goods and this being in contravention of Section 50/51 of Act, 2008, penalty has rightly been imposed upon assessee.;