2006 (11) TMI 613 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 against penalty imposition under section 76 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994
- Allegation of evasion of sales tax by furnishing incorrect statement
- Claim for exemption under section 17(3)(a)(vi) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994
- Consideration of mala fide intention to evade tax by showing a purchase as local purchase

Analysis:
The judgment involves an application challenging a penalty imposed under section 76 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The petitioner, a registered dealer, imported iron steel but showed a portion as local purchase, seeking exemption under section 17(3)(a)(vi) of the Act. The Commercial Tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings alleging evasion of sales tax by furnishing incorrect statements. The penalty was initially set at Rs. 35 lakh, later reduced to Rs. 29,09,143 on appeal. The Deputy Commissioner affirmed the penalty, leading to the petitioner's application to quash the penalty orders, claiming no deliberate intention to evade tax.

The main issue for consideration was whether the petitioner had a mala fide intention to evade tax by showing a purchase as a local purchase. The Tribunal analyzed the facts, noting that the petitioner did not charge sales tax on the amount in question and submitted an application for exemption before detection by tax officials. The Tribunal observed that the dealer's belief that the purchase was local was bona fide, as evidenced by the actions taken. The Tribunal found no concealment of purchase and sale, leading to the conclusion that the penalty imposition was not justified.

The judgment referenced various legal precedents to support the decision. It distinguished cases where deliberate concealment or suppression of facts existed from the present case where the dealer disclosed the disputed transactions before detection. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing mala fide intention for imposing penalties, which was not evident in this case. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order, stating that the dealer had no mala fide intention to evade tax, and the presumption remained unrebutted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the penalty imposed for the assessment period in question. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, and both members of the Tribunal, R.K. Dutta Chaudhuri and Deb Kumar Chakraborti, concurred with the decision.