2014 (9) TMI 918 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Evasion of tax - Seizure of goods - Goods were ceased on the ground that column no. 6 of form 38 has been left blank - Held that - Goods found were duly recorded in the books of accounts, advance payment by cheque was made. Purchase was made against Form -C which has been issued against the transaction, purchaser and seller both are bona fide dealers, form 38 in question was sent in advance by the applicant to the selling dealer, excise invoice was found accompanied with the goods, in respect of which, Canvet Credit was admissible to the applicant since the goods imported was a raw material. - there was no intention to evade payment of tax - The finding recorded by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal that there was no intention to evade payment of tax, is based on consideration of relevant materials and evidences on record - No infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. No question of law arises - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under Section 54 (1) (14) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision filed under Section 58 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 against an order related to penalty under Section 54 (1) (14) of the Act. The facts of the case revolved around the interception of a truck loaded with goods, which were found to be accompanied by an excise invoice and form 38. The goods were seized due to an omission in column no. 6 of form 38. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal of the assessee based on various factual findings, including the proper recording of goods in accounts, advance payment by cheque, legitimate purchase against Form -C, and the absence of any intention to evade tax. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, upheld the findings of the first appellate authority, concluding that there was no intent to evade tax based on the evidence presented.

The Hon'ble Court, after considering the submissions and the orders of the lower authorities, found no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It was noted that the findings regarding the absence of intention to evade tax were based on a thorough consideration of the relevant materials and evidence on record. Consequently, the Court held that no question of law arose, deeming the revision as misconceived and dismissing it. The revision was ultimately deemed to fail and was dismissed on 23.9.2014.