ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This revision is by the assessee challenging an order passed by the tribunal dated 21.8.2007, whereby penalty imposed by the first appellate authority against the assessee has been enhanced in respect of different defaults. The question posed for consideration is as to whether the tribunal is justified in levying penalty upon the assessee in respect of the default in question?
(2.) Assessee is a manufacturer of paper and its manufacturing unit at Kasipur and Bazpur in State of Uttranchal. It has established its depot at Surajpur in district Rampur. Certain stock transfer was made from its manufacturing unit to its depot on different dates. Since Uttranchal was a new State carved out, as such during relevant period there was no check post in existence at the border. Form 31 accordingly could not be endorsed at the check post. It appears that under certain circulars issued by the department, such form could be got deposited in the office concerned within a month of stock transfer. Assessee instead of depositing it had sent it by courier such that it reached after expiry of thirty days. For such reasons, penalty proceedings were initiated. The first appellate authority found that none of stock transfers had been seized. It is otherwise not proved to be a case of tax evasion. However, for the technical default committed penalty to the tune of Rs. 500 was imposed. Cross appeals were filed. Appeal of the assessee has been rejected while appeal filed by the department has been allowed and penalty has been enhanced. Thus aggrieved, assessee is before this Court.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist states that in the facts and circumstances on record, there was no intents established to evade payment of tax and on account of any technical default only imposition of penalty is bad in law. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in Modi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported 1995 UPTC 920 .;