2015 (4) TMI 1083 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty under section 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Bill and builty produced at the time of checking are bogus and suspicious - Difference in writing in the original invoice viz-a-viz the office copy - Held that - if the bill was prepared simultaneously with the carbon, there could be a variation of the line as on account of non-placing the carbon copy in a proper manner in the office and copy line may shift down on sides but there cannot be a difference in the writing which has been noticed by the assessing officer and a finding of the fact has been recorded by the Tax Board. It has also been noticed by the Tax Board that the original invoice was not found at the time of inspection of the vehicle but was later on produced and finding of the Tax Board is that it was prepared later on when the vehicle was intercepted and in the original bill book one bill was left blank. Therefore, no question of law can be said to emerge out of the order of the Tax Board. - Decided against the petitioner

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 based on suspicion of bogus documents.
2. Deletion of penalty by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent appeal by Revenue to Rajasthan Tax Board.
3. Discrepancy between original invoice and office copy leading to imposition of penalty.
4. Arguments regarding tax evasion and lack of proper record-keeping by the assessee.
5. Finding of fact by Tax Board regarding significant difference in writing between original invoice and office copy.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the imposition of a penalty under section 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 due to suspicion surrounding the authenticity of documents presented by the assessee during a transaction involving the sale of goods to a third party. The Anti Evasion Wing intercepted the goods and raised concerns about the legitimacy of the bill and builty associated with the transport vehicle, leading to the imposition of the penalty.

2. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) initially deleted the penalty after being satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee. However, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, which overturned the decision of the Deputy Commissioner and reinstated the penalty, emphasizing the discrepancy between the original invoice and the office copy as a basis for upholding the penalty.

3. The crux of the matter revolved around the significant difference in writing observed between the original invoice and the office copy, which raised suspicions regarding the authenticity of the documents. The Tax Board concluded that the office copy appeared to have been prepared later on, leading to the imposition of the penalty based on the discrepancy identified by the assessing officer.

4. The arguments presented by the counsel for the assessee focused on refuting the allegations of tax evasion and emphasizing the availability of relevant documents with the vehicle during interception. The counsel relied on various legal precedents to support the contention that the penalty was imposed on mere surmises and conjectures, highlighting the absence of intent for tax evasion and the production of books of accounts without adverse findings.

5. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the decision of the Tax Board, emphasizing that the significant difference in writing between the original invoice and the office copy was a crucial factor in determining the authenticity of the documents. The Court noted that the Tax Board's finding of fact regarding the discrepancy was based on substantial evidence, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition and affirming the imposition of the penalty.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the rationale behind the High Court's decision in the case.

← Previous Next →