ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This revision challenges an order passed by the authorities under the Act imposing penalty upon the revisionist under Section 48(5) of the Act. The order records that by two separate trucks, goods were being transported, and were intercepted by the officer of the department. In respect of year 2013-14, 335 bags of wheat were transported in a vehicle bearing registration No. UP 53T 5680, and upon asking of the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, none of the documents such as Challan, Bills, Sale invoice etc., were produced. Treating it to be a case of evasion of tax, proceedings were initiated and notice was issued. In response to such notice, the assessee submitted its reply after about four days, stating that goods were being validly sent to one M/s Goel Edible Ltd., Industrial area, and that there was no intention to evade tax. The authorities have considered the explanation and defence of assessee has been discarded after returning a finding that the books of account had not been maintained properly, and that it contains over righting and cutting. A further finding has been returned that transport vehicle was intercepted at the place which did not fall enroute the disclosed purchaser, and as such it is claimed that defence itself was not bona fide and an afterthought.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a decision of this Court in Priyanka Alloy Steel and Coal Co. v. C.C.T, 2016 NTN (62) 317 , in order to contend that an order under Section 48 (5) of the Act can be passed only if following twin conditions are satisfied: (a) The authorities are satisfied that goods were omitted from being shown in the accounts, registers and other documents referred to in sub-Section (1) or not traced to any bona fide dealer or not properly counted for by any dealer or that the goods contained wrong particulars or are undervalued to the extent of more than 50% of the value of goods in the local market where the said transaction had taken place. (b) The authorities are further of the opinion that there was an intention to evade payment of tax.
(3.) Learned counsel submits that in the factual scenario of the present case, these twin conditions are met, inasmuch as proper account had been produced which included the gate pass of mandi Samiti, tax invoices, as well as the stock register etc. Submission is that the order of the authorities, in the facts of the present case, cannot be sustained.;