9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 881 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPenalty under Section 15A(l)(o) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Held that - The order of the Tribunal, insofar as it holds that penalty can be levied even in absence of intention to evade the tax, is affirmed. The Tribunal may redetermine the quantum of penalty to be levied, giving due weightage to the mens rea part involved, namely, the intention to evade tax. For the limited purpose the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for quantification of the penalty alone afresh. So far as the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sanjiv Fabrics 2010 (9) TMI 461 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA is concerned, it may be recorded that section 54(1) of the VAT Act was under consideration. This court is not required to examine the provision of the said Act in the facts of this case, yet this court may point out that clause (2) of clause (14) of section 54 has not been taken note of in the said judgment. The matter is left to be examined in an appropriate case.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of penalty under Section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. 2. Requirement of mens rea (intention to evade tax) for imposing penalty. 3. Interpretation of Section 28A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. 4. Discretion in quantification of penalty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Penalty under Section 15A(1)(o): The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable for penalty under Section 15A(1)(o) due to an attempt to avoid tax while transporting goods without valid documents. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 15,000. The court clarified that penalty is attracted on violation of any provision of Section 28A, including non-compliance with documentation requirements under Section 28A(2) and 28A(5). 2. Requirement of Mens Rea for Imposing Penalty: The assessee argued that penalty under Section 15A(1)(o) requires proof of intention to evade tax. The court referred to multiple judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Bharjatiya Steel Industries and Guljag Industries, to conclude that mens rea is not a condition precedent for imposing penalty. However, mens rea is relevant for determining the quantum of penalty. The court emphasized that the power to levy penalty for statutory violations does not necessitate proving an intention to evade tax. 3. Interpretation of Section 28A: The court explained that Section 28A(6) pertains to the power of seizure and requires satisfaction of an intention to evade tax. This provision operates independently of the penalty provisions under Section 15A(1)(o). Violations of Section 28A(2) and 28A(5) can attract penalties without the need to establish mens rea. The court distinguished between the power to seize goods and the power to levy penalties, noting that the latter can be imposed for technical violations even without an intention to evade tax. 4. Discretion in Quantification of Penalty: The court acknowledged that the assessing authority has discretion in quantifying penalties and must consider mens rea in this context. The Tribunal's failure to consider mens rea in determining the penalty amount was deemed incorrect. The court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh quantification of the penalty, taking into account the intention to evade tax. Conclusion: The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that penalty under Section 15A(1)(o) can be imposed for statutory violations without proving an intention to evade tax. However, it remanded the case for fresh determination of the penalty amount, emphasizing the need to consider mens rea in quantification. The revision was disposed of with the direction to the Tribunal to reassess the penalty amount.
|
