2015 (10) TMI 220 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure of goods - demand of security for release of the goods - Held that - court has noted in detail the willful and deliberate suppression of facts by the applicant and his prima-facie involvement in evasion of tax. Even despite time granted, the applicant did not comply with the order of this court dated August 21, 2014. Even, he has not filed affidavit disclosing certain details and facts, as was directed by this court in paragraph 7 of the order dated August 21, 2014 - The original record has also been shown to the learned counsel for the applicant. In the said record information of ten TDF in two pages down loaded from departmental website is available. These two pages are singed by the officers also. Perusal of it shows that ten transit declaration forms for PVC dana were downloaded by the applicant within a short span of four or five days. This paper contains complete details, namely, truck number name of selling dealer and value of goods, etc. This document is undisputed and has not even been denied by the applicant despite the direction given to him vide para 7 of the order dated August 21, 2014. All the authorities including the Tribunal have recorded a finding that the goods in question was brought to evade payment of tax. I find that prima-facie, the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences available on record shows that under the cover of TDF attempt to evade payment of commercial tax was made showing dispatches to a non-existing/non-bona fide dealer of Bihar with the help of manipulated paper and false declaration. - No infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. No question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods and demand for security under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
2. Validity of seizure and security demand.
3. Allegations of evasion of tax and false declarations.
4. Compliance with court orders and submission of relevant documents.
5. Prima facie evidence of tax evasion through manipulated documents.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge against the seizure of goods and the demand for security under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The applicant contended that the seizure of goods was void ab initio and in breach of the Act, while the respondent argued that the security was lawfully demanded based on detailed facts noted in the seizure order and the impugned tribunal order.

2. The court noted that the applicant failed to establish the genuineness of the transaction and proper documentation. The applicant's affidavit was found to contain false statements, and there was evidence of willful suppression of facts and tax evasion. The court upheld the authority's decision to demand security for the release of goods, dismissing the revision challenging the seizure and security demand.

3. The court highlighted the applicant's failure to comply with court orders to submit relevant documents and disclose accurate information. Despite multiple opportunities, the applicant did not provide the required details, and the court noted the deliberate suppression of facts by the applicant, indicating involvement in tax evasion through manipulated documents and false declarations.

4. The court emphasized the importance of disclosing true and correct facts, directing the applicant to file a fresh affidavit with all relevant details, including payment descriptions and transit declaration form usage. The court scrutinized the information available on the departmental website, which contradicted the applicant's claims, reinforcing the suspicion of tax evasion through fabricated documents.

5. Ultimately, the court found no infirmity in the tribunal's order, concluding that the revision was misconceived and deserved dismissal. The court imposed costs on the applicant and directed the competent authority to pass a penalty order in accordance with the law, independent of the observations made in the judgment regarding tax evasion. The judgment highlighted the seriousness of tax evasion and the importance of complying with legal procedures and court directives.