9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (5) TMI 987 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether under the provisions of the Entry Tax Act, the possessor of the goods can be subjected to entry tax in the absence of his giving particulars of his local purchases? Held that - Appeal dismissed. No provision in the said Act is brought to our notice which may enable the authority to raise the presumption that a possessor of the specified goods, who fails to produce before the authority his accounts, register or document on being required to do so, has imported the goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area without payment of tax. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is impossible for a court to infer that the respondent has imported the goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area without payment of tax. Thus we cannot but uphold the impugned judgments of the Tribunal
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the judgment of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal. 2. Burden of proof regarding the entry of goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area. 3. Definition and liability of a "dealer" under the Entry Tax Act. 4. Presumption of tax evasion under the Entry Tax Act. 5. Assessment of tax and penalty under section 14 of the Entry Tax Act. 1. Validity of the Judgment of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal: The State of West Bengal challenged the Tribunal's decision which quashed the tax and penalty demand on the respondent. The Tribunal had ruled that the authority failed to prove that the goods were brought from outside the Calcutta metropolitan area by the respondent. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof was on the authority, and there was no provision in the Entry Tax Act placing this burden on the possessor of the goods. 2. Burden of Proof Regarding the Entry of Goods: The Tribunal held that the authority must prove that the goods were brought into the Calcutta metropolitan area from outside and that it was the respondent who brought them. The Tribunal found no material evidence from the authority to establish this, thus quashing the tax and penalty demand. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that without evidence showing the goods were brought into the area and without payment of tax, no tax could be levied. 3. Definition and Liability of a "Dealer" Under the Entry Tax Act: The respondent argued that he was not a "dealer" as defined under section 2(c) of the Entry Tax Act. The Tribunal and Supreme Court agreed, noting that the respondent did not fall into any of the four categories of persons defined as "dealers" under the Act. Consequently, the respondent was not liable for the tax or penalty under the provisions applicable to dealers. 4. Presumption of Tax Evasion Under the Entry Tax Act: The appellant contended that the authority could presume tax evasion if the possessor of the goods failed to provide proof of local purchase. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that presumptions must be specifically provided for by law. The Entry Tax Act did not contain provisions allowing such presumptions against the possessor of goods. Therefore, the authority could not presume that the respondent had imported goods without paying the tax. 5. Assessment of Tax and Penalty Under Section 14 of the Entry Tax Act: Section 14 of the Entry Tax Act outlines the assessment procedure for tax and penalty. The Supreme Court noted that the liability for tax and penalty under sub-sections (1), (2), and (3) of section 14 is on the dealer. Since the respondent was not a dealer, he could not be subjected to tax or penalty under these provisions. The Court also highlighted that the authority failed to meet the requirements for assessing tax under sub-section (3), which necessitates proving that the goods were brought into the area without tax payment. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's judgment, dismissing the appeals and affirming that the respondent was not liable for the tax and penalty as he was not a "dealer" and the authority failed to prove the goods were imported without tax payment. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
