0

Once the documents were produced before passing the seizure order, it cannot be said that the revisionist had any intention to evade payment of tax: Allahabad High Court.

The revisionist along with a reply to show cause notice has filed the relevant documents before the seizure authorities but the same was paid no weightage, in such a case it cannot be said that the revisionist was trying to evade tax. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court before Hon’ble Justice Piyush Agrawal in the matter of M/S Colgate Palmolive India Ltd vs  Commissioner Of Commercial/Entry Tax Lucknow [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. – 191 of 2009] on 22.10.2021.

The facts of the case revolved around a seizure of goods which was been transported as stock transfer and seized at the entry check post of State of U.P. (Raksha) (Jhansi). It was the contention of the revisionist that despite the production of all relevant documents before the seizure authority no heed was paid and a penalty of Rs. 4 Lacs was imposed. On the other hand, it was the contention of the standing council that at the time of submission of trip sheet (Behti), no documents whatsoever were produced. Thus, the penalty imposed is completely justified and bonafide in law.

The Hon’ble High Court referred to the judgment given in the case of Sarvashri Ramesh Chand Santosh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow (2010 U.P.T.C.-1113) in which it was held that “t the penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act, 1948 could not be imposed if the dealer not found to have contravened the provision of Section 28-A of the Act, 1948. The Court has further held that if the documents have produced along with the reply to the show-cause notice, there is no attempt to evade tax and imposed the penalty is bad.

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed that it is on record that the revisionist had duly submitted all the documents before the authorities along with a reply of the show-cause notice. Therefore, it cannot be said that the revisionist had any intention to evade payment of tax or has made any contravention of the Act.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the revision and set aside the impugned order.

Click Here To Read The Judgment.

Judgment Reviewed By: Rohan Kumar Thakur

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat