2015 (9) TMI 1508 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty u/s 78(5) - Stock transfer - Form ST-18A - Held that - when it is admitted by the Assessing Officer himself and by all the three Authorities that the goods were being transported as a stock transfer and there was no necessity/requirement of carrying declaration Form ST-18A prior to 30.03.2000 and admittedly, the goods were being transported in the instant case on 06/04/1999, therefore, when there was no requirement of carrying declaration form prior to 30/03/2000 penalty ought not to have been imposed - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposition for not carrying declaration Form ST-18A during stock transfer; Interpretation of legal requirements pre and post specific dates; Applicability of judgments regarding penalty imposition on owner or in-charge of the vehicle.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the imposition of a penalty for not carrying declaration Form ST-18A during a stock transfer. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer correctly imposed the penalty under Section 78(5) due to the absence of the required form, while the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board later overturned this decision. The petitioner highlighted a discrepancy between the Tax Board's decision and a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court, emphasizing that the penalty could be imposed on either the owner or the in-charge of the vehicle.

2. On the other hand, the respondent contended that carrying declaration Form ST-18A was not mandatory before a specific date, making the penalty unjustified. The respondent cited a judgment by the High Court to support their argument and urged the court to dismiss the petition.

3. The court analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and acknowledged that there was no requirement to carry declaration Form ST-18A before a certain date, which included the date of the incident in question. Referring to a notification by the State Government, the court concluded that the penalty imposition was unjustified due to the lack of necessity prior to the specified date.

4. Addressing the conflicting judgments regarding the liability for the penalty, the court noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had ruled that the penalty could be imposed on the owner as well. However, the court emphasized that since the penalty was not sustainable based on the facts of the case, the discussion on liability was merely academic and did not impact the final decision.

5. Ultimately, the court found no fault in the Tax Board's decision to delete the penalty, deeming it just and proper. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the respondent based on the lack of merit in the petitioner's arguments.