RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) THESE are two revisions against the order of the Tribunal dated May 23, 2007 for the assessment years 1996 -97 and 1997 -98.
(2.) THE applicant claimed to be a corporation of the State Government and is registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). Admittedly, the applicant was not registered under the Central Sales Tax Act for coal in the years under consideration. In the year under consideration the applicant purchased coal from outside the State of U.P. and issued form C in respect thereof. The assessing authority initiated the penalty under Section 10A of the Act for the violation of clause (b) of Section 10 of the Act and after hearing the applicant levied the penalty under Section 10A of the Act. Being aggrieved by the orders under Section 10(b) of the Act, the applicant filed two appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Kanpur. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Kanpur vide order dated September 29, 2001 allowed the appeals and set aside the penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal in part and has upheld the levy of penalty and has held that the applicant has violated the provisions of clause (b) of Section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal however levied the penalty at one and a half times of the tax. Heard Sri R.P. Dubey, assisted by Sri Shrikant Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri K.M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that it is true that the applicant was not registered for the coal under the Central Sales Tax Act but while obtaining the form C from the assessing authority in the details furnished for the use of the earlier form C it was informed that form C was used in the purchases of slack coal. Such details have been furnished as annexure S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit. He further submitted that in the letter dated August 1, 1995 to the assessing officer or obtaining form C it was categorically stated that the applicant required form C for the import of slack coal and on the basis of said letter form C was issued. He submitted that the aforesaid fact shows the bona fide on the part of the applicant in using form C for the purchases of coal and therefore the applicant is not liable for penalty. In alternative submitted that levy of penalty at one and half times is excessive.;