Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) ALL the revisions have been filed by the Department under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the judgment and order dated January 2, 2007 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal for the assessment years mentioned above where the Tribunal has cancelled the levy of penalty imposed under Sections 15A(1)(q) and deleted the addition made under Section 7(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
(2.) I have heard Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Counsel for the Department and Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, counsel for the assessee, assisted by Sri Manish Misra. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, is a public limited company involved in the manufacturing and sale of tractors. The company has its principal place in U. P., Lucknow. During the assessment years under consideration, the assessee has sent goods to Uttranchal -via -U. P. The tractors were passed through U.P. and going to its destination in Uttranchal and other places. The transit passes were made at "incoming check -post" and were due for cancellation at the "out going check -posts" of the U. P. For some reason or other, these transit passes were not put on the "outgoing check -posts" for cancellation. Hence, the Department has presumed that the said tractors were sold in U. P. and have not gone outside the U. P. Therefore, the assessing officer has made the assessment under Section 7(4) as well as levied the penalty under Section 15A(1)(q) of the Trade Tax Act, 1948. These orders were passed ex parte. The first appellate authority has confirmed the said orders ex parte too.
(3.) HOWEVER , in second appeal, the Tribunal has examined the entire material and evidence submitted by the counsel for the revisionist under Section 12B of the Trade Tax Act and invited the objections from the Department, but no objections were filed. The Tribunal in its order has specifically mentioned that the evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the concerning vehicles, has shown that the vehicles have gone out of U. P. and got its entry in the stock registers of the recipient stockyards of the other States. The evidence, as submitted by the assessee, was also examined by the Tribunal as well as State representative. Finally, it was proved that those vehicles were sold by the stockyards to the customers in their States. For vehicles, going to Uttranchal, photo copy of form C of that State was also filed and the officer of that State has verified the same. Thus, ample evidence was furnished to that effect that the vehicles in question have crossed the border of the U.P. and were sold in other States. The Tribunal also relied upon the ratio laid down in the case of Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U.P. : [1986] 62 STC 381 (SC) : [1986] UPTC 721 (SC).;