2015 (4) TMI 655 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of penalty and interest - adjustment of carried forward input tax credit - Held that - respective assessees had surplus balance of input credit, which have been adjusted against the demand of tax upon reassessment. Under these circumstances, the element of avoidance of tax could be said as lacking. Consequently, the deletion of interest and penalty by the learned Tribunal could not be said as unjustifiable and/or it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting the interest and penalty. Following decision of STATE OF GUJARAT Versus JAY STEEL AND TUBES TRADERS 2015 (2) TMI 372 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to deletion of penalty and interest by permitting adjustment of carried forward input tax credit.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed a common question of law and facts arising in a group of Tax Appeals and a Special Civil Application. The main issue involved the decision of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal in deleting the liability of penalty and interest by allowing adjustment of carried forward input tax credit. The State of Gujarat challenged the Tribunal's orders deleting interest and penalty imposed on dealers due to such adjustments. During the final hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader conceded that previous decisions by the Division Bench of the High Court favored the dealers, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and application against the State Government/Revenue.

In a previous case, the High Court observed that the Tribunal correctly held that interest could not be charged when the dealer had sufficient Input Tax Credit to adjust against the additional assessed tax liability. The Court emphasized that the intention to evade or avoid tax payment is necessary for imposing a penalty. Since the Tribunal found no such intention on the part of the dealers, the interest and penalty were rightly deleted. The situation in the present matters mirrored the previous case, where the demand was confirmed, adjustments were made, and interest and penalty were deleted.

The Court noted that the dealers had surplus input credit balances, which were adjusted against the tax demand upon reassessment. This surplus indicated a lack of tax avoidance, justifying the deletion of interest and penalty by the Tribunal. The judgment concluded that the issue was already settled by previous decisions against the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of all tax appeals and the special civil application. Consequently, the application numbers associated with the tax appeals were also dismissed.