- (1.) HEARD Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and Sri M.M. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) SRI B.K. Pandey supports the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the finding recorded therein.
(3.) SRI M.M. Rai submits that the penalty has been levied merely on the ground that coloumn no. 6 was blank. He submits that at the time when the goods were intercepted, it was found accompanied with all the relevant documents and the authorities concerned has not even doubted the correctness and genuineness of the documents found along with the goods. He submits that it was merely mistake committed by the selling dealer that coloumn no. 6 was not filled up. There was no intention to evade the payment of tax. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are findings of fact based on relevant materials . He submits that penalty cannot be imposed merely on the ground that Form -6 was left blank. In support of his submission, he relied upon Clause 3 of the Circular, dated 3rd February, 2009 wherein the Commissioner has instructed the authorities that if coloumn no. 2 or 3 are filled up as per accompanied documents then the goods shall not be detained if other coloumns are blank and in such circumstances the entry shall be made in Form -38 and vehicle shall be allowed to proceed.;