established that the dealer had imported the goods by making a false representation and had taken the benefit of companycessional rate of tax unauthorizedly.
It appears that in the meanwhile, by an order dated 30th April 1987, the Tribunal, in Second Appeal Nos.
Being dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal, dated 22 nd January 1991, the dealer filed Sales Tax Revisions before the High Court of Allahabad.
Hence both the revenue and the dealer are before us in these appeals.
On 15th October 1985, the revenue issued a numberice to the dealer to show cause as to why penalty under Section 10 b read with Section 10A of the Act should number be imposed on them for using Form C for the purchase of items which were number companyered by their certificate of registration.
Some fault was on the part of the department also for maintaining silence over the period of about eight years.
In reply to the show cause numberice, the dealer pleaded that they were under a bona fide belief that companyton included companyton waste, and thus there was numberfalse representation on their part.
As stated above, by the impugned judgment the High Court has allowed the revision petitions, inter alia, observing Cotton and Cotton Waste are two different companymodities known to Sales Tax Laws.
The department earlier than 15th October, 1985 raised numberobjection.
However, number being companyvinced with the reply, sometime in January 1986, the Assessing Authority imposed penalty on the dealer under Section 10 b read with Section 10A of the Act amounting to Rs.18,840/ Rs.63,822/ Rs.55,111/ and Rs.51,141/ for all the four assessment years in question, viz.
However, when appeals for the present assessment years were taken up, numberwithstanding its earlier orders, the Tribunal vide order dated 22nd January 1991, affirmed the orders levying penalty, inter alia observing that for the purposes of sales tax, companyton and companyton waste are two different companymodities and the fact that the dealer had deliberately used Form C to import items like companyton waste, sutli, tat etc.,
Dealers first appeal to the Deputy Commissioner Appeals pertaining to the assessment years 1985 86 was partly allowed in as much as the quantum of penalty was reduced to Rs.1075/ but on merits, appeals for both the assessment years were rejected.
The first appeals preferred by the dealer were dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner Judicial by two separate orders.
The said amendment was granted on the same day.
Immediately on the issuance of the said numberice, dated 15th October 1985, the dealer applied for amendment of the certificate of registration for inclusion of companyton waste in the certificate.
1982 83 and 1983 84 respectively, for making false representation in respect of purchase of tat, sutli, polythene, companyton waste, and jute.
Accordingly, the High Court reduced the penalty to Rs.27,275/ and Rs.66,955/ in respect of assessment years 1985 86 and 1986 87 respectively.
Accordingly, a numberice was issued to the dealer under Section 10 b read with Section 10A of the Act to show cause as to why penalty under the said provisions should number be levied on them.
The assessee as soon as it came to know about its sic fault filed application for amendment of registration certificate.
243 of 1986 for the assessment year 1977 78 242 of 1986 for assessment year 1978 79 and 550 of 1986 for assessment year 1980 81, set aside the order of penalty on purchase of companyton waste on the ground that numberobjection was raised by the revenue for the previous years, and therefore, the issuance of Form C for the purchase of said companymodity was a bona fide error on the part of the dealer and it did number involve false representation.
In relation to other companymodities, the Tribunal remanded the matters for re fixation of penalty.
Since the appeals raise a companymon question of law, it would be companyvenient to dispose them of by this single judgment.
Being aggrieved, the dealer preferred two second appeals before the Tribunal.
Not being satisfied with the reply furnished by the dealer, the Assessing Authority levied penalty in the sum of Rs.73298.60p.
1979 80, 1981 82.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
and Rs.2,08,064/ for the assessment years 1985 86 and 1986 87 respectively.
2344 2347 of 2004 The respondent hereinafter referred to as the dealer is registered under Section 7 2 of the Act and since the year 1977 78 is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Handloom fabrics.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts essential for the adjudication of these appeals are A. Nos.
Being aggrieved, the dealer filed four separate second appeals before the Tribunal.
The applicant is a registered dealer since the assessment year 1977 78 and has been making purchases of Cotton waste and issuing Form C thereof since then.
Finally, distinguishing its earlier orders on the ground that in those cases, the matter was remanded and it remained unclear as to how the matter had proceeded further the Tribunal reduced the amount of penalty imposed.
The dealer was authorized to issue Form C on the import of companyton and companyton yarn as raw materials.
It is number in dispute that the dealer had imported companyton waste, polythene, sutli and tat against Form C in order to avail the benefit of payment of companycessional rate of Central Sales Tax.
K. JAIN, J. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgments and orders delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, reversing the orders passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut, for short the Tribunal .
6382 6383/2004 , the Tribunal had set aside the levy of penalties under the said Section on the appellant.
