2015 (9) TMI 469 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods transferred for replacement Imposition of Penalty During course of business, huge quantity of goods were found defective by purchasing dealers which were returned back by dealers for replacement Since goods in question were moved by way of replacement and not by way of sale, obligation to fill declaration form was not required However said goods were detained by Excise and Taxation Officer and penalty was imposed taking value of goods Whether order imposing penalty was justified Held that - goods which were impounded were put to auction and were purchased for sum of ₹ 36,71,000 Respondent agreed to adjusted amount received towards liability of assesse and excess amount shall be released In view of said position, State permitted to adjust amount of liability from sale consideration and to release excess amount to appellant Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Issues:
1. Justifiability of order under section 51(7) of PVAT Act, 2005 despite appearance of goods owner before the enquiry officer.
2. Enhancement of goods value for penalty amount justification.
3. Violation of rule 70 of Punjab VAT Rules, 2005 by not putting goods for auction despite owner's request.
4. Imposition of penalty on goods meant for replacement.
5. Jurisdiction and authority of law in proceedings and penalty order.
6. Liability for goods in Department's custody for four years.
7. Legality and mala fides of Department's act in keeping goods for a long period.
8. Perversity of orders below, contrary to evidence, misreading of evidence/law.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a registered dealer in Gujarat, engaged in manufacturing and export, faced penalties under PVAT Act, 2005 for goods movement issues. Despite appearing before the Enquiry Officer with necessary evidence, penalties were imposed, raising concerns about the justifiability of the order under section 51(7) of the Act. The appellant contended that the penalties were imposed based on inflated goods value for penalty enhancement, questioning the justification of such actions.

2. The case highlighted a situation where goods meant for replacement due to defects were detained by the Excise and Taxation Officer, leading to a series of penalty orders. The appellant argued against the imposition of penalties on goods intended for replacement, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment of the circumstances surrounding the goods' movement and detention.

3. Another significant issue raised was the alleged violation of rule 70 of the Punjab VAT Rules, 2005, pertaining to the auction of goods. Despite repeated requests from the owner for an open auction, the goods were not put up for auction, prompting concerns about the legality of the Department's actions and the fulfillment of procedural requirements under the VAT Rules.

4. The jurisdiction and authority of law in the proceedings and penalty orders came under scrutiny, with questions raised about the validity of the penalties imposed and the overall legal basis for the actions taken against the appellant. The appellant challenged the proceedings and penalty orders on grounds of jurisdictional issues and compliance with legal requirements.

5. The issue of liability for goods lying in the Department's custody for four years was also a point of contention. The appellant's repeated requests for the auction of the goods raised concerns about the Department's actions, leading to questions about the legality and mala fides of keeping the goods in custody for an extended period without resolution or proper disposal.

6. The judgment ultimately allowed the State to adjust the liability amount from the sale consideration of the goods, valued at Rs. 36,71,000, with an agreement to release any excess amount to the appellant within a specified timeframe. This resolution aimed to address the financial aspects of the case while disposing of the appeal based on the agreed terms between the parties involved.

← Previous Next →