9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 1045 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision - Penalty - Declaration to import - It is an undisputed fact that from August 1 2008 the check-post in U.P. was abolished - Held that - There was no concealment of the sale or goods. The blank form was available with the truck driver but due to change circumstances which were beyond his control neither there was any mala fide intention nor any concealment on the part of the assessee. Therefore by keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT there was no justification for levy of the penalty - Decided in favor of the assessee.
Issues:
1. Penalty under section 54(1)(14) of the VAT Act for blank declaration form during import. Analysis: The case involves a revision filed under section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, against the Commercial Tax Tribunal's order canceling the penalty levied under section 54(1)(14) of the VAT Act for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee, engaged in trading of grocery and dry foods, had a truck intercepted with a blank declaration form during import, leading to the penalty imposition of &8377; 2,36,000. The Tribunal later canceled this penalty, prompting the Department to file the revision. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the truck started its journey from Andhra Pradesh to U.P. before the check-post in U.P. was abolished on August 1, 2008. The truck driver, carrying the blank declaration form, was unable to fill it at the check-post due to the absence of assistance/officer, as was the previous practice. Despite all other documents being in order, the penalty was imposed. However, considering the circumstances beyond the driver's control and the absence of mala fide intention or concealment, the court referred to the case law of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and concluded that there was no justification for the penalty. The court, after hearing both parties and examining the record, upheld the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty. Citing the absence of mala fide intent or concealment and the change in circumstances beyond the driver's control, the court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the Department's revision was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision was sustained based on the reasons provided in the order.
|
