ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow, issued notices under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the revisionist, with the allegation that assessee has brought goods from Nepal by undervaluing it to more than 50%, and that why penalty to the extent of 40% of value of goods be not imposed upon the assessee under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act. The notice was contested by the revisionist stating that there was no undervaluation and that for import of Big Cardamom, the custom authorities stationed at Nepal Border had examined all materials and records, and no infirmity was found. It is also stated that value had to be ascertained from the place where transaction had taken place, and that the authorities were not justified in determining the valuation of goods by getting its price ascertained from other places i.e. Kanpur, Lucknow etc. The objection nevertheless has been rejected by the authorities and have been affirmed by the Tribunal. Thus aggrieved, assessee is before this Court in the instant revision filed under Section 58 of the Act.
(2.) Following questions of law have been framed for consideration of the present revision:- "A) Whether Tribunal was legally justified in affirming the levy of penalty on the ground other than mentioned in the Notice issued for levy of penalty? D) Whether penalty on the ground of undervaluation can be imposed on the basis of value gathered from the place of transaction, even without confronting with the sample of the goods?" It is also urged that authorities have erred in proceeding to pass the order of penalty, invoking jurisdiction under Section 54(1)(21-B), although no notice or proceedings were initiated in respect thereof.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel has tried to justify the order of Tribunal for the reasons recorded therein.;