Commissioner Commercial Tax ... vs M/S Bharat Traders
2014 Latest Caselaw 3812 Del

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
               Trade Tax Revision No. 20 of 2009

Commissioner, Commercial Tax,
Uttarakhand, Dehradun                     ...........           Revisionist

                                  Versus

M/s Bharat Traders, Gurukul Narsan,
Tehsil Roorkee, District Hardwar    ...........                  Respondent

      Present: Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the revisionist.
               Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Advocate for the respondent.


Coram :         Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.
                Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
                           JUDGMENT

Date: 20th August, 2014 Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

This Trade Tax Revision has been filed by the State under Section 11 (1) r/w Section 80 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The case of the revisionist is that Truck No. HR 58-1876 was apprehended by the Trade Tax Authorities at Dehradun - Raiwala Road and on the statement of the truck driver that the goods in the truck (bags of cement) were uploaded at Muzaffarnagar in U.P. to be downloaded at Rishikesh in the State of Uttarakhand, a penalty was imposed to the tune of ` 18,000/- under Section 15-A (1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as the driver was not carrying the required documents, which are necessary for an inter-State transaction, such as "Form-31" and "Form-32". This was done after a due notice to the assessee/respondent. The assessee went in appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), which was allowed as the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) took note of the fact that the penalty was imposed merely on the alleged statement of the truck driver, whereas the documents shown by the assessee show the transportation to be only intra-State. The assessee had furnished

the invoice and other relevant documents, which showed that the goods were in fact, loaded at Roorkee (in Uttarakhand), from a Cement Factory known as 'Sarwasri Continental Cement Company, Narsan' at Uttarakhand, and they were to be downloaded at Rishikesh which also falls in the State of Uttarakhand. Therefore, the transaction was an intra-State transaction and there was no question for imposing a penalty and there was no requirement of "Form -31" and "Form- 32". The second appeal was filed before the Trade Tax Tribunal by the State, which was dismissed. Aggrieved, the State has filed the present revision before this Court.

2. On the basis of the findings given by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Trade Tax Tribunal that the documents such as "Form - 31" and "Form -32" were not a requirement in the case as it was clearly an intra-State transaction, consequently the penalty was wrongly imposed. The revision has no merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

           (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)            (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
                 20.08.2014                     20.08.2014
P. Singh