2012 (10) TMI 374 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Difference in the rates of the goods mentioned on the delivery slip and the invoice - Held that - Tribunal had come to the conclusion after in the open court, with the aid of calculator, the requisite calculations were carried out and that there was no difference in the rates depicted in the delivery slip and the invoice after adding the Central Excise at the rate of 16.32% in the bill. The rates in both the documents were identical. Version of the department that driver of the vehicle had tried to bribe Constable by offering him a currency note was not accepted as if he had spurned the offer of money, he would have not allowed the vehicle to cross ICC and if had accepted it, he would have let off the vehicle. Thus, there does not seem to be any substance in the story proffered by the Department - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order allowing respondent's appeal under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Allegation of tax evasion - Discrepancy in rates of goods - Attempt to bribe constable - Tribunal's reversal of findings - Determination of tax evasion.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana involved a case under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, where the State of Punjab challenged the order passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal in favor of the respondent. The issue revolved around an incident where a vehicle loaded with iron and steel goods crossed a checkpoint without providing necessary information, leading to a discrepancy in rates and lack of proper documentation. The authorities imposed a penalty under Section 51(7) (c) of the Act, alleging an attempt to evade tax. The respondent's appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, prompting the state's appeal before the High Court.

The primary question for determination was whether the respondent had attempted to evade tax as per Section 51(7) (c) of the Act. The Tribunal, in its findings, highlighted that after calculating the Central Excise separately at 16.32%, there was no difference in rates between the delivery slip and the invoice. The Tribunal dismissed the department's claim of the driver trying to bribe a constable, deeming it unnatural and unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal concluded that there was no substantiated attempt to evade tax by the dealer, leading to the acceptance of the appeal.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the rates in the delivery slip and the invoice were identical after including the Central Excise amount. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's findings, as they were not deemed erroneous or perverse. Consequently, the appeal by the State of Punjab was dismissed on its merits. Since no substantial question of law was identified, the Court did not address the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.