2011 (3) TMI 1535 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order passed by revisional authority setting aside the order of the appellate authority.
2. Discrepancy in the date of transportation and invoice for automobile parts.
3. Imposition of penalty under section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
4. Jurisdiction of revisional authority to interfere with the order of the appellate authority.
5. Discrepancy in the amount mentioned in the invoice and the application of discount.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the revisional authority's decision to set aside the appellate authority's order and restore the assessing authority's imposition of duty, penalty, and interest. The case involves the transportation of automobile parts in a bus, where discrepancies were found between the invoice date and the actual transportation date. The appellate authority set aside the penalty imposed by the assessing authority, but the revisional authority found the appellate authority's reasoning erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, leading to the restoration of the original order.

2. The discrepancy in dates between the invoice and the actual transportation raised suspicions of tax evasion. The appellate authority accepted the assessee's explanation of a typographical error, but the revisional authority deemed it a deliberate attempt to evade tax. The revisional authority justified setting aside the appellate authority's order, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with statutory provisions and rejecting ignorance of the law as an excuse.

3. The imposition of a penalty under section 28A(4) of the KST Act was based on discrepancies in the value noted on the goods and the invoice. The appellate authority allowed a 35% discount without supporting evidence, leading to suspicions of tax evasion. The revisional authority upheld the penalty, emphasizing the importance of curbing attempts to evade tax for future compliance.

4. The appellant contended that the revisional authority exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the reasoned order of the appellate authority. However, the High Court upheld the revisional authority's decision, considering the deliberate discrepancies in dates and values as evidence of tax evasion, justifying the intervention.

5. The discrepancy in the amount mentioned in the invoice and the application of a 35% discount without supporting evidence indicated a clear attempt to evade sales tax. The revisional authority emphasized the need to prevent such tendencies and upheld the penalty, dismissing the appeal and underscoring the importance of curbing tax evasion practices for future compliance.