- (1.) K. L. SHARMA, J. This revision is directed under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, against the judgment and order dated November 25, 1988 of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Aligarh, whereby the appeal against the imposition of the penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Sales Tax Act was partly allowed reducing the amount of penalty from Rs. 19,000 to Rs. 17,000 for the assessment year 1983-84.
(2.) THE applicant is a sole proprietorship concern engaged in the business of purchase and sale of scientific goods, apparatus and electrical goods, etc. In the assessment year 1983-84 he submitted the return and also produced the account books duly maintained by him in the ordinary course of business. The assessing authority accepted the account books and also the return and assessed the tax accordingly on August 25, 1987. The assessing authority noticed that some of the purchases recorded in the account books and imported from outside U. P. were made without submitting form No. 31. The tax assessed for the assessment year 1983-84 was duly paid by the assessee. But later on in September, 1987 the assessing authority initiated the proceedings fore imposition of penalty for the violation of section 28-A of the Sales Tax Act and after rejecting the explanation submitted by the assessee imposed a sum of Rs. 19,000 as penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act, relying upon the decision of the High Court in the case of Bulaki Das Vinod Kumar 1987 UPTC 154. The assessee could not succeed in his first appeal against the imposition of the penalty and afterwards in the second appeal wherein the learned Tribunal reduced the amount of penalty only by Rs. 2,000. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R. D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. The only question arising for determination in this revision is whether the penalty imposed by the authority under the Sales Tax Act was justified under law and on facts.
(3.) MR. Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that since the assessee had paid the due tax on all the imported goods including those in respect of which form No. 31 was not furnished, there does not arise any case for imposition of penalty. He has referred to the finding of fact recorded by the learned assessing authority to the effect that all the purchase valued at Rs. 3,09,832. 90 have been duly recorded in the account books which have been verified and due tax has been accordingly paid. He has therefore, submitted that since there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade tax on the goods imported from outside the State through post for which form No. 31 were inadvertently not furnished. According to him the omission was merely due to negligence on the part of the assessee and nothing more. In support of his contention he has cited the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. State of U. P. [1983] 53 STC 54; 1983 UPTC 198 and subsequent decision of single Judge of this Court in the cases of Bharat Ply-wood Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 79 STC 400; 1989 UPTC 1097 and Jamco Shoe Factory, Agra v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1995 UPTC 295. In reply Mr. R. D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel cited [1989] 177 ITR 455 (SC); 1989 UPTC 990 (Gujarat Travancore Agency v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala), [1992] 193 ITR 713 (SC); 1992 UPTC 797 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kalyan Das Rastogi) and (1996) 2 JT 79 (SC) (Director of Enforcement v. State of U. P. ).;