- (1.) HEARD Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Mamta Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) IN all the above noted revisions common question of law is involved. The revisions are admitted on the following question of law : "Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in setting aside the penalty order passed under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, where the goods in question were not in conformity with the document as well as Transit Declaration Form produced by the dealer/opposite party before the seizing authority and the transaction in question was totally in contravention with the provision of the Act with an intention to evade tax -
(3.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the revisions are being heard finally. TTR No.578 of 2014 The facts of the case are that on 19.8.2013 a truck No.HR -55C/2066 was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad -Vth Unit, Moradabad. On physical verification, the goods were found accompanied with a Challan No.5730 dated 16.8.2013 and two bilties Nos.24398 and 2497 both dated 16.8.2013, Invoice No.2069 dated 16.8.2013 of M/s Vinay Sales, Delhi and Invoice No.441 dated 16.8.2013 of M/s United Hardware and Paints, New Delhi, a declaration form for import (Form -16) No.1679703 of Uttarakhand State issued by M/s Mittal Enterprises, Khateema and a TDF dated 17.8.2013. On physical verification number of goods loaded in the truck were found different, as compared to the accompanied challan, invoices and TDF. Apart from this against total 206 articles mentioned in the above noted two bilties, 222 articles were found and several goods were found different in quantity or quality. Several goods mentioned in the accompanied invoice/challan were not found in the truck. Form No.16 of Uttarakhand State was found totally blank. On checking from Internet the TIN numbers of M/s United Hardware and Paints, New Delhi and M/s Vinay Sales, Delhi, both the firms were found non -existent. On these facts, penalty proceedings under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was initiated against the respondent and a penalty order dated 28.11.2013 imposing penalty of Rs.12,09,033/ - was passed. The assessing officer also recorded a finding of fact that no evidence of carrying the goods in question and delivering it outside the State of U.P. was submitted. Despite being asked the respondent did not produce copies of form -C and the payment details. The only evidence filed by the respondent to allege that the goods reached outside the State of U.P. was the information uploaded on the website as per details of Form -16. As per the uploaded information, the respondent is a consignor, which also corroborates with the challan accompanying the goods. The other alleged consignors, namely, Vinay Sales and United Hardware and Paints, New Delhi, were found non -existent. The goods shown in the invoices are alleged to have been sold against Form -C, but the copies of Form -C were not producded.;