- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned standing counsel.
(2.) This revision emanates from proceedings taken against the assessee for levy of penalty under the provisions of Section 13-A (4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948. The assessee is said to be engaged in the business of printing of lottery tickets and case making on job work basis. Two consignments being sent by it outside the State of U.P under the cover of gate pass Nos. 167 and 64 were seized on 28 July 1998. At the time of seizure, the officers found that there was certain overwriting over the gate passes. The revisionist was put to notice and in its reply submitted that certain goods which had been received by it for the purposes of completion of job work contracts were being returned under the gate passes in question. The details of the dealer and the description of goods being returned were also declared. The assessing authority however did not accept the explanation furnished by the assessee and accordingly proceeded to impose penalty in terms of sub section (4) Section 13-A. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee took the matter before the first appellate authority, which held that both the revisionist and entities to whom the goods were dispatched were bona fide registered dealers. It further recorded a categorical finding that the goods which were being dispatched had been duly accounted for in the books of accounts. The first appellate authority therefore took the view that no cause existed for imposition of penalty. The Department took the order of the first appellate authority in appeal. The order impugned herein is the judgment of the Tribunal on the said appeal.
(3.) As a reading of the order of the Tribunal would indicate what has apparently weighed with it was a failure on the part of the revisionist to furnish details of how the material had actually been imported by it into the State of U.P. It has noticed what in its view was a shifting and vacillating stand of the revisionist inasmuch as while before the assessing authority its assertion was of the goods having been imported into the State under the cover of gate pass Nos. 4 and 13, before the first appellate authority the case set up by the revisionist was that the raw material had been received under gate pass Nos. 3 and 4. On this basis, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the explanation so proffered was not liable to be countenanced and consequently upheld the order of the assessing authority imposing penalty.;