YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) These two revisions with the consent of parties are taken up for disposal together. Both these revisions emanate from proceedings undertaken by the respondents for the levy of penalty under Section 15A(1)(q). The allegation was that two consignment of paper which entered the State of U.P. on 20 and 23 July 1992, although accompanied with the appropriate declarations as envisaged under Section 28B, the requisite forms were not surrendered at the exit check post. It is not disputed that the transportation of the goods in question originated in the State of Maharashtra and were ultimately bound for New Delhi. Since the declaration forms were not surrendered at the exit check post, the respondents took the position that the goods would be presumed to have been sold within the State. It is on this basis that penalty has been levied upon the assessee.
(3.) As this Court reads the order of the assessing authority as well as that of the Tribunal it is apparent that the receipt of the goods at the Delhi office was not disputed. The respondents have sought to draw adverse inference from the circumstance that although the challan was dated 20 July 1992, the goods were received by the Delhi office only on 23 July 1992. Based on this singular circumstance the respondents have proceeded to levy penalty upon the assessee.;