9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (1) TMI 785 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues involved:
1. Imposition of penalty in an illegal and arbitrary manner without considering completed transactions. 2. Imposition of penalty despite genuine documents and no trade relation between parties. 3. Legality of the impugned orders A2 to A4 based on the circumstances of the case. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to VAT Appeal Nos. 66 and 67 of 2008, where common questions of law were raised. The appeals were filed against orders passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh. The appellant questioned the imposition of penalties without considering that the transaction with a government agency had been successfully completed. The Tribunal found attempts to evade tax and imposed penalties under section 51(7)(b) of the Act. The appellant claimed the goods belonged to the government agency and were being transported for delivery, but discrepancies in documentation and delays raised concerns. 2. Another issue raised was the imposition of penalties despite the presence of genuine documents and the absence of a trade relationship between the parties involved. The Tribunal noted the lack of required documents during transportation, such as invoices and delivery challans, as mandated by the Act. The goods were diverted to a different location for an extended period without proper explanation, leading to doubts about the legitimacy of the transactions. The legality of the penalties imposed in such circumstances was questioned. 3. The Tribunal's findings highlighted discrepancies in the transportation process and the failure to comply with documentation requirements. Despite the appellant's arguments, the court emphasized that appeals to the High Court should be based on substantial questions of law, not factual disputes. As per section 68(1) of the Act, appeals can only be admitted if they involve substantial questions of law. In this case, the court found no such grounds for interference and dismissed both appeals, affirming the Tribunal's orders.
|
