2014 (8) TMI 661 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - relevant documents including Form 38 etc. were not available either with Transporter or with authorities managing or supervising godown during survey - Held that - Inspection was made on 7.12.2013. The show cause notice was issued on 12.12.2013. There was a gap of 5 days but during this entire period, no attempt was made on the part of Revisionist or else to approach the authorities concerned along with documents to show that the genuine documents were already there but for some valid reasons, could not be shown at the time survey was conducted on godown. No plausible reason or explanation has been given in this regard. It is true that reply has been submitted within time prescribed in the show cause notice, but the fact remains that documents for the first time has come before the authorities concerned along with reply dated 23.12.2011 and from the date of survey till the date of reply, there is a gap of more than 15 days. Therefore, the adverse inference drawn by authorities concerned in passing the order impugned in this Revision cannot be said to be wholly improbable in the facts and circumstances of this case. These are findings of fact recorded by the authorities and I do not find any material on record to show any perversity therein. It is no doubt true that mere non availability of document, as such, may not be a justification for seizure of goods but then there has to be an attempt on the part of Dealer to immediately produce the document before authorities concerned. In the present case it is sought to be explained that documents were ready and available with representatives of godown yet could not be shown to Survey Authorities. Reasons therefore is not provided - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods due to missing relevant documents during a survey at a godown.
2. Show-cause notice issued to Assessee and subsequent submission of relevant documents.
3. Order of seizure by Assistant Commissioner and release on the condition of depositing security.
4. Rejection of application by Joint Commissioner based on findings of intention to evade tax.
5. Delay in producing documents by the Assessee leading to adverse inference.
6. Failure of the Assessee to provide a valid explanation for the delayed submission of documents.
7. Absence of justification for the seizure of goods due to non-availability of documents.
8. Comparison of cited cases with the present case and their relevance.
9. Absence of any legal question necessitating adjudication.
10. Dismissal of the Revision.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around a survey conducted at a godown where goods were found loaded on a transport vehicle without relevant documents like Form 38. This led to the issuance of a show-cause notice to the Assessee, who later submitted the missing documents along with a reply to the Assessing Authority.
2. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner ordered the seizure of goods, allowing release upon depositing security equivalent to 40% of the goods' value. The Joint Commissioner upheld this decision, citing the absence of documents with the transporter or godown officials as evidence of tax evasion intention.
3. The Tribunal confirmed the view, emphasizing the delayed production of documents by the Assessee, indicating a lack of preparation beforehand. The court agreed with the concurrent findings, highlighting the Assessee's failure to promptly present documents after the inspection.
4. The court noted that despite submitting a reply within the prescribed time, the Assessee did not provide a valid reason for the delayed document submission, strengthening the authorities' inference of tax evasion intent.
5. Emphasizing the importance of immediate document production to avoid adverse inferences, the court dismissed the Assessee's argument of document readiness, stating that mere unavailability during inspection is insufficient justification for seizure.
6. The court rejected the Assessee's reliance on previous cases, emphasizing the differing factual contexts. Ultimately, finding no legal question for adjudication, the court dismissed the Revision, affirming the authorities' decisions based on the evidence and circumstances presented.