2015 (4) TMI 572 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of section 76(6) of VAT Act - penalty @ 30% of the value - Declaration found to be blank - Held that - Admittedly VAT-47 was found absolutely blank except seal of the petitioner s firm, therefore, the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Guljag Industries (2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has come to conclusion that if the material particulars in Form ST-18A, are found unfilled or left blank then for all practical purposes, there is no declaration form and the revenue was justified in imposing penalty, despite of the fact that vehicle was having other documents like bills, vouchers & builty etc.- Admittedly, in the present case the VAT-47 has been found totally blank except the seal of the petitioner, therefore, in my view, the Tax Board was well justified in holding the penalty leviable by the assessing officer. Declaration Form VAT-47 and declaration form ST-18A are at par. - goods of the assessee can be said to be still in transit though reached destination as only part of goods were unloaded, if the goods have reached destination it does not mean that movement of goods had come to an end. - goods of the assessee can be said to be still in transit though reached destination as only part of goods were unloaded, if the goods have reached destination it does not mean that movement of goods had come to an end. - The goods were still in the vehicle though may be partly unloaded that does not mean that goods had been delivered to consignee - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposition under section 76(6) of the VAT Act for a blank VAT-47 declaration form.
2. Interpretation of section 76(2) of the VAT Act regarding goods in transit and possession.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner-assessee filed a sales tax revision petition challenging the Rajasthan Tax Board's order imposing a penalty under section 76(6) of the VAT Act for a blank VAT-47 declaration form found during a vehicle interception. The assessing officer levied a penalty of 30% of the value of the goods being transported. The Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) later deleted the penalty, but the Rajasthan Tax Board, after analyzing relevant judgments, allowed the Revenue's appeal, leading to this revision petition.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that once the goods reached their destination, the assessee had no control, citing section 76(2) of the VAT Act. They contended that since the goods were partly unloaded and supported by other documents, the penalty was unjustified. However, the judge, after considering the arguments, found the VAT-47 declaration form blank except for the firm's seal, similar to the precedent set in M/s Guljag Industries case. The judge emphasized that the goods were still in transit as per the explanation in section 76(2) since they were under the transporting agency's control, rejecting the petitioner's interpretation.

3. The judge concluded that the penalty imposition was justified based on the blank VAT-47 form and the goods being in transit despite reaching the destination. The judge dismissed the revision petition, stating no infirmity in the Tax Board's order and emphasizing the factual findings over legal interpretations, citing the M/s Guljag Industries case as a precedent. The judge also distinguished the petitioner's reliance on the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. case, as it did not offer any explanation for the blank declaration form.