2016 (10) TMI 1187 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty - non-production of Declaration Form ST-18A - the declaration Form ST-18A was not produced on the premise that it was not required - Held that - Admittedly the declaration Form ST-18A was not produced at the time of checking of the vehicle and the claim of the petitioner that there was a newspaper report is wholly inapplicable and no cognizance could have been taken on the so called newspaper report or otherwise. Even the claim about newspaper report is bald claim unsupported by any material. Any news in newspaper reports cannot be taken into consideration and cannot be said to be a bona-fide belief and is a mere explanation without any supporting material and the Tax Board has rightly come to the conclusion that the penalty was appropriate in a case like this. No question of law can be said to emerge. Petition dismissed.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 53 regarding the requirement of carrying declaration Form ST-18A.
2. Consideration of newspaper reports as a reasonable cause for non-compliance.
3. Application of judgments by the Apex Court in similar cases.
4. Assessment of penalty based on compliance with mandatory requirements.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 53 concerning the necessity of carrying declaration Form ST-18A. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty on the petitioner for not having the form at the time of interception, deeming it mandatory. The Dy. Commissioner (A) reversed the penalty citing the filing of the form along with the show cause notice. However, the Tax Board disagreed, emphasizing that the form was obtained after the interception, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was justified.

2. Another crucial aspect is the consideration of newspaper reports as a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The petitioner argued that a newspaper report suggested manufacturers were exempt from carrying the form, justifying their actions. The court dismissed this argument, stating that relying on a newspaper report without concrete evidence is insufficient to establish a bona fide belief, especially when mandatory requirements like Rule 53 are involved.

3. The judgment delves into the application of precedents set by the Apex Court in similar cases. While the petitioner cited the case of D.P. Metals to support their compliance with filing the form post-interception, the court differentiated the circumstances and applied the ruling of Guljag Industries, emphasizing the mandatory nature of Rule 53. This highlights the importance of adhering to specific legal requirements despite individual beliefs or external sources.

4. Lastly, the assessment of the penalty was based on the petitioner's compliance with mandatory requirements. The court emphasized that the form was obtained after the interception, indicating a lack of diligence in fulfilling the necessary obligations promptly. Consequently, the court upheld the penalty, stating that no legal question arose from the Tax Board's decision, as it was a factual finding without any legal flaws warranting interference.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the penalty imposed on the petitioner for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of carrying declaration Form ST-18A under Rule 53. The judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to legal obligations, regardless of individual beliefs or external sources, in matters concerning tax compliance and regulatory requirements.

← Previous Next →