YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Tanmay Sadh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the contesting parties.
(2.) This revision emanates from proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 13-A(4) of the 1948 Act. The allegation levelled and found proved by the respondents in the proceedings in question was that the assessee had allegedly tampered with the Form-49 under which certain goods were imported into the State of U.P. thus evidencing an intent to evade payment of tax. On the basis of the said conclusion, the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority held the revisionist liable to imposition of penalty. The view so taken has been affirmed by the Tribunal which has appeared to have been swayed by the facts that certain chemicals were used on Form -49 and that the same had evidently been tampered with in order to evade payment of tax. Sri Sadh, learned counsel appearing in support of the revision stated that there could have been possibly no intent to evade payment of tax attributed to the revisionist who was neither the manufacturer nor the importer of the goods. In his submission, the assessee purchased the tax paid goods from the local market, and was merely in possession of the Form 49 which had been issued by the concerned dealer who has imported the goods in the local area. He also drew the attention of the Court to the reply preferred by the revisionist immediately upon the issue of the show cause notice in which it was stated that the transaction had been duly accounted and that this aspect has neither been considered nor alluded to by the Tribunal.
(3.) From the above narration of facts and those which admittedly come to the fore, it is evident that the revisionist was neither the manufacturer nor the importer of the articles. In view thereof, Sri Sadh, learned counsel appears to be correct in his submission that an intent to evade payment of tax or a motive in respect thereof could not had been attributed to the revisionist. There appears to be further force in his submission that the Tribunal has apparently failed to consider the contention of the revisionist that the goods had been duly accounted for in the books of account maintained by it. As this Court reads the order of the Tribunal, it is more than evident that this aspect far from being considered, has not even been remotely noticed. Both the circumstances referred to above clearly tend to establish that there could possibly have been no intent to evade payment of tax so as to warrant the imposition of penalty.;