2009 (12) TMI 869 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Designated Officer at ICC can impose any penalty under section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Vat Act, 2005, for an offence committed (if any) under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? Whether, after the goods are voluntarily reported at the ICC, before exit of the goods from Punjab State, the ICC authorities are authorised to make an enquiry regarding alleged evasion of tax, which is in the domain of the Assessing Authority where penalty under section 56 can be imposed, if any offence is committed? Whether it could be said that there was an attempt to evade or avoid payment of tax by mere delayed movement of goods when the sale invoices/bills had been issued on March 26, 2007, goods were earmarked and goods receipts issued to the vehicles for their onward transmission to the consignees on the same date? Held that - There is nothing which prevented the assessee-company from maximizing the exhaustion of its exemption limit to pay tax by March 26, 2007 provided there were genuine purchase orders and goods available for sale. The authorities, merely on account of delayed movement of goods, in the face of the explanation put forth by the assessee, and in the absence of any material on record, in our considered opinion, cannot draw the only irresistible inference that there was an attempt to evade payment of tax. The assessing authority has based its finding of attempt to evade tax simply on the basis of its presumption and suspicion. Therefore, the delayed movement of goods by itself is not sufficient to conclude that there was an attempt to evade payment of tax or the bills/sale invoices were ante-dated. Hence, the findings recorded by the Tribunal/authorities under the VAT Act are based on no evidence and are liable to be set aside. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeals against penalty imposition under section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for alleged attempt to evade tax by ante-dating bills/sale invoices.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Penalty Imposition Jurisdiction
The appellant argued that the designated officer at ICC lacked jurisdiction under section 51(7)(b) of the VAT Act to impose penalties for Central Sales Tax Act offenses. The appellant contended that the assessing authority should handle such matters under section 56 of the VAT Act. The respondent argued that the Tribunal's factual findings on tax evasion attempts were conclusive. The court held that the penalty imposition authority was limited to cases of tax avoidance or evasion under the VAT Act, not the CST Act.

Issue 2: Timing of Goods Movement and Tax Evasion
The main contention was whether delayed goods movement post-invoicing implied tax evasion. The appellant maintained that goods were legitimately sold and dispatched on the same day as invoicing, with no tax liability due to exemptions. The court found that delayed movement alone did not prove tax evasion. The Revenue's presumption lacked evidence, and delayed movement did not establish evasion. The court emphasized the need for legal proof over suspicion or coincidence.

Conclusion
The court allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant-assessee, setting aside the penalties and ordering any penalty deposits refunded. The court ruled that the delayed goods movement did not indicate tax evasion, and the authorities' findings lacked substantial evidence. The judgment clarified the jurisdiction for penalty imposition and emphasized the importance of legal proof in tax evasion cases.