YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) This revision arises out of the proceedings taken by the respondents under Section 28A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948 Act. In terms of the order impugned the respondent has held the revisionist liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,16,000 on the ground that the Form31 which accompanied the imported goods had not been duly filled in. The Tribunal has rested its decision on a failure on the part of the revisionist to disclose details such as the name of driver, his father's name, his driving licence as also on the ground that the declaration form did not carry a serial number nor was the number of the vehicle disclosed therein. On this basis the Tribunal has formed the opinion that it was possible for the revisionist to use the Form31 on more than one occasion, thus, making it liable to a levy of penalty under the Act.
(3.) As this Court goes through the entire material and evidence on record, it finds that the revisionist had imported the goods in question from Mexico. It is not in dispute that these goods were duly cleared by the Custom authorities and were thereafter handed over to a clearing agent for delivery at the office of the revisionist in Noida. It is also not in dispute that the import/shipment documents appended as Annexure 3 to the paper-book accompanied the Form31. A perusal of the Form in question establishes that it did carry details of the consigner and consignee. The nature of the goods as well as their estimated value had also been duly declared. The finding of the Tribunal that the Form did not carry a serial number and that the vehicle number was also not disclosed is clearly contrary to the record. As is evident from a perusal of the Form both these particulars were duly mentioned therein. The other discrepancies which appear to have weighed with the Tribunal to hold against the assessee also appear to be clearly superfluous.;