2008 (1) TMI 839 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of penalty under section 14B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.
2. Illegal imposition of penalty without proper documents.
3. Non-supply of penalty order and appellate order to the petitioner.
4. Failure to pass a fresh penalty order after remand.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, engaged in a transport business, filed a petition seeking a refund of Rs. 80,000 charged as a penalty under section 14B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The penalty was imposed by an Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner for allegedly carrying goods without proper documents. Despite the penalty order being set aside by the Appellate Authority, the amount was not refunded to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner's truck was intercepted by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, resulting in the imposition of the penalty. The petitioner, under compelling circumstances, deposited the penalty amount to secure the release of the vehicle. However, the penalty order was not provided to the petitioner, leading to a challenge of the arbitrary action before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, which ultimately resulted in the penalty order being set aside.

3. The petitioner's appeal challenging the penalty order was successful, with the Appellate Authority remanding the case back to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner for a fresh order. Despite repeated representations by the petitioner, no fresh order was passed, and the amount of Rs. 80,000 remained unrecovered. The non-supply of both the appellate order and the original penalty order added to the petitioner's grievances and lack of clarity regarding the proceedings.

4. The court noted the department's failure to pass a fresh penalty order due to the unavailability of relevant files. However, the court held that the petitioner should not suffer due to the department's negligence. Consequently, the court directed the respondent-authority to release the amount of Rs. 80,000 to the petitioner immediately, along with interest as per the law, emphasizing that the department's inability to issue a fresh penalty order did not justify withholding the deposited amount from the petitioner.