RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) Present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated June 12, 2001 relating to the assessment year 1988 -89, by which the Tribunal has confirmed the penalty under Section 15A(1)(o) of the Act at Rs. 10,000.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the applicant is a registered dealer and was carrying on the business of foodgrains, etc., against from XXXI No. 3223727. The applicant had imported 98 bags urad (mogar) and rajma (dagi). At the check -post, bill, builty and declaration form were produced for necessary endorsement. On physical verification in place of urad (mogra) and rajma (dagi), dal urad dhova and normal rajma were found. On the basis of the wrong description of the goods, the same were seized and on the estimated value of Rs. 1 lakh, security at Rs. 40,000 was demanded. In pursuance of the seizure, penalty proceeding under Section 15A(1)(o) of the Act was initiated. The applicant submitted the reply. In reply, it was stated that urad (mogra) is being called dal dhova in the seller area and in respect of the rajma it was submitted that it was of inferior quality. The assessing authority accepted the explanation with regard to the urad (mogra) but had not accepted the explanation with regard to the rajma (dagi) and on the estimated value of Rs. 40,000 a sum of Rs. 16,000 was levied towards penalty. The order of the assessing authority has been confirmed in first appeal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal in part. The Tribunal confirmed the levy of penalty but has reduced the quantum of penalty to Rs. 10,000. - - Heard Sri Amit Jaitley, learned Counsel holding brief on behalf of Sri Piyush Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that since the quality of rajma was inferior, in the description it was mentioned rajma (dagi). He submitted that merely because there was a difference of opinion with regard to the description of goods between the applicant and the revenue authorities, it cannot be said that the applicant attempted to evade the tax. He submitted that at the check -post, bill, builty and declaration form were submitted for necessary verification. In case, the Check -post Officer has any doubt about the quality of the goods, sample of the same would have been taken for consideration at the time of assessment proceedings, but no sample was taken by the Check -post Officer. He submitted that merely because the assessing authority has different opinion about the nature of the goods it cannot be said that the applicant had attempted to evade the tax. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.;