2015 (7) TMI 268 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty u/s 53 - Mens Rea - Whether the initiation of suo moto revisional proceedings against the appellant under section 64(1) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act is erroneous in law and as such, same is liable to be set aside - Held that - Since the driver did not produce any document pertaining to the goods under transport, the vehicle as well as goods were detained and Goods Consignment Endorsement vide No.GCE-18/10-12 dated 29.07.2010 was issued to the driver. It is also not in dispute that one Sri.Rilesh who was calling himself as authorised officer of appellant company came to the spot within half an hour of interception and obviously after getting information from the driver of the vehicle. He also did not produce any records pertaining to the goods under transport. It was only in the evening on 29.07.2010 at about 5 P.M. it seems appellant company faxed copy of invoice bearing No.139 dated 29.07.2010 in which it is contended that 240 bags of Pan Parag were to be delivered to M/s.Lovely Enterprises, No.7, G.S.Market, O.T Pete Cross, Bengaluru-53 in which the company has stated that the copy of invoice is with the driver and it continues to be with the driver who was afraid of the inspecting officer and hence he could not speak and satisfy the authorities by producing the bill. Said fax message further requested for early release of the vehicle. All the aforementioned admitted facts clearly reveal that the person in-charge of the vehicle or the person who came within half an hour after interception of the vehicle calling himself as authorised officer of appellant company did not produce any record or documents pertaining to the goods under transport. The legislature in detail has prescribed procedure for carrying goods under section 53 of the Act. The said provisions are mandatory in nature and having regard to the legislative intention, if those provisions are not complied then there is non compliance of statutory requirement. As the provisions do not anywhere disclose or indicate that the intention to evade tax is necessary for levy of penalty, same cannot be read in section 53 of the Act to find out whether statutory contravention is established or not. Once statutory contravention is established, then section 53(12) is attracted which provides for levy of penalty. - revisional authority is justified in setting aside the order passed by the appellate commissioner and restoring the order passed by the original authority - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interception of goods vehicle carrying Pan Parag-Gutkha, failure to produce transport documents, imposition of penalty under section 53(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, appeal against penalty imposition, suo moto revisional proceedings under section 64(1) of the Act, substantial question of law regarding initiation of revisional proceedings.

Analysis:
The appellant, a dealer in Pan Parag-Gutkha, had their goods vehicle intercepted for not producing transport documents. Despite subsequent document submission, penalty under section 53(12) of the Act was imposed. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal, but a revisional authority set aside the order, reinstating the penalty. The key issue was the initiation of suo moto revisional proceedings under section 64(1) of the Act.

The appellant argued that there was no intention to evade tax as taxes were paid, and documents were faxed promptly after interception. However, the respondent contended otherwise. The court noted that the goods were intercepted without proper documents, leading to detention and penalty imposition. The revisional authority's detailed order justified setting aside the appellate authority's decision.

Section 53 of the Act mandates carrying specific documents during goods transport to prevent tax evasion. The failure to produce documents immediately after interception violated these provisions. The court emphasized that statutory contravention, not intent to evade tax, triggers penalty under section 53(12). Since the case didn't fall under specific clauses, the penalty imposed was deemed appropriate.

The court upheld the revisional authority's decision, affirming the penalty imposition and dismissing the appeal. The substantial question of law was decided against the appellant, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory requirements during goods transport under the Act.