2007 (7) TMI 608 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to entry tax for coal brought into local areas for weighment.
2. Completion of sale and liability to entry tax.
3. Validity of penalty u/s 7(5) of the Entry Tax Act.
4. Levy of penalty on sales to registered dealers.
5. Levy of penalty on sales to the Defence Department.
6. Levy of penalty on sales to new industries and manufacturers of tax-free goods.

Summary:

1. Liability to Entry Tax for Coal Brought into Local Areas for Weighment:
The court addressed whether the petitioner was liable to entry tax for causing entry of coal into local areas solely for weighment. It was held that "liability to pay the entry tax under the Act arises only if entry of goods into the local area is for consumption or use or sale in the local area." Since the coal was brought into the local area only for weighment and not for consumption, use, or sale, no entry tax was payable. The court referenced the decision in *Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P.* and the Supreme Court's ruling in *Entry Tax Officer, Bangalore v. Chandanmal Champalal & Co.* to support this view.

2. Completion of Sale and Liability to Entry Tax:
The court determined that the sale was complete when the delivery was given to the purchaser's agent at the pit mouth or at the weighbridge after weighment. Since the coal was not sold for use or consumption in the local area and was taken out soon after weighment, the dealer was not liable to entry tax.

3. Validity of Penalty u/s 7(5) of the Entry Tax Act:
The court examined the penalty imposed u/s 7(5) of the Act for failing to endorse a certificate on the sale bills. It was noted that the presumption of facilitating evasion of entry tax is rebuttable. The Supreme Court in *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals* held that the presumption can be rebutted if the dealer provides satisfactory evidence.

4. Levy of Penalty on Sales to Registered Dealers:
The court found that the penalty was not leviable when registered dealers certified that entry tax was paid on the goods purchased. The presumption of facilitating evasion of entry tax was rebutted by the evidence provided by the petitioner.

5. Levy of Penalty on Sales to the Defence Department:
The court held that the Defence Department is not a "dealer" as defined in the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. Therefore, sales to the Defence Department were not covered by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 of the Act, and no penalty could be levied.

6. Levy of Penalty on Sales to New Industries and Manufacturers of Tax-Free Goods:
The court upheld the levy of penalty on sales to new industries and manufacturers of tax-free goods. The petitioner failed to produce eligibility certificates or declarations to prove that these industries were exempt from entry tax, thereby not rebutting the presumption of facilitating evasion of entry tax.

Disposition:
The reference application was disposed of with the court answering the questions in favor of the petitioner on some points and in favor of the respondent on others.