2011 (10) TMI 566 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Value Added Tax Tribunal regarding penalty imposition under sections 51(7)(b) or 51(4) of Punjab Value Added Tax Act 2005.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that since there was no finding of an attempt to evade tax or tax liability, the imposition of penalty was unjustified. They relied on a Supreme Court judgment to argue against remanding the case to the authority who had already decided on the issue. However, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner found the documents produced by the appellant to be not genuine and imposed a penalty under section 51(7)(b) of the Act. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner upheld the penalty under section 51(4) for sending goods out of Punjab with improper documents.

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner to decide whether the penalty should be imposed under section 51(7)(b) or section 51(4) of the Act. The appellant contended that without any finding of tax liability or evasion, the question of penalty imposition did not arise for consideration.

The High Court noted that the matter being remitted back to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner did not cause any prejudice to the appellant as they were allowed to raise all contentions. The court emphasized the need for the authority to determine tax liability, evasion, or technical breaches before deciding on the penalty under sections 51(7) and 51(4) of the Act.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the High Court clarified that remanding the matter for re-determination by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner was not barred by statute or precedent. The court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, allowing the appellant to present all legal and factual arguments before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner for further consideration.