East India Tannery Co. vs Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow

Satish Chandra, J.—Both the revisions u/s 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act have been filed by the assessee revisionist (Firm) against the consolidated order dated 25.1.1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 29 and 383 of 1996 for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively. The brief facts of the case are that during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee revisionist, was carrying on business in hides and skins, which was started in the year 1976-77.

On 14.6.1979, the accountant of the revisionist made a statement before the assessing authority that no imports from out of the State were immediately required nor any inter-state sales were likely to be made immediately, but the revisionist may do so in future.

It is only on 20.6.1979, the application in Form-A was submitted for the registration under Central Sales Act.

In the meantime, the assessee has also started the Factory at Barabanki in the year 1984. The Certificate for the registration under the Central Sales Tax Act was granted on 24.3.1983 for importing the hides and skins. However, during the assessment year under consideration, without the permission, the assessee has used Form C and Form 31 to import the chemicals and machinery while the permission was only for hides and skins. For misusing the Forms, the A.O. has levied the penalty u/s 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act. However, the First Appellate Authority has reduced the penalty and the Tribunal has confirmed the same. Still not being satisfied, the assessee has filed the present revisions.

With this background, Sri M.M. Dewan, learned counsel for the assessee admits that the chemicals and machines were imported by using the Form under the bona fide belief to meet the immediate requirement. It is also a submission of the learned counsel that there was no mens rea. For this purpose, he has relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases:

P.K. Varghese and Sons Vs. Sales Tax Officer, .

Manjunatha Type Retreading Works Vs. The State of Mysore,

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bombay Garage, .

Palghat District Co-operative Rubber Marketing Society Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner (Assmt.) 11, Sales Tax Office [1994] 93 STC 485 (Ker.).

Jwala Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, .

Kanhaiya Lal Suraj Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, .

On the other hand, learned counsel for the department has justified the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the assessee has imported the goods without having the proper sanction. The permission was only for the hides and skins but Form C and Form 31 were utilized for importing various chemicals and machinery. Thus, the assessee has imported the goods without proper permission, wrongly by misrepresenting the facts.

The cases cited by the learned counsel for the assessee cannot extant any help to the assessee, as the facts are quite different to the case in hand. The assessee has imported the goods by knowing that the same are without any permission. The First Appellate Authority has already reduced the amount of penalty and at present, there is no further scope to reduce the same.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the appellate authorities appears reasonable and the same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein for all the assessment years under consideration. No question of law is emerging from the impugned order. In the result, both the revisions are devoid of merits and are hereby dismissed.