2015 (10) TMI 358 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Evasion of central excise and VAT on the paper purchased - Reopening of assessment - Reversal of ITC - Held that - goods were dispatched to M/s Malhotra Book Depot of Cuttack. The Tribunal vide earlier order dated 5.7.2010 had ordered for reopening of the assessment to examine the transactions relating to the purchase made by it for which ITC was claimed and particularly regarding the purchase of goods which were intercepted while being sent to Cuttack. The said order had become final as its validity was never assailed by the appellant. The ETO-cum-Designated Officer, Jalandhar-I relying upon the report of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh that both the said firms were fictitious and not genuine, disallowed the ITC against the purchases of paper worth 19,90,035/- and imposed penalties amounting to 79,602/- under Section 58 of the Act and 10,000/- under Section 60 of the Act. The appellant failed to challenge the verification report of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh. - no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in refiling the appeal
- Appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005
- Substantial questions of law raised
- Imposition of penalties and dismissal of appeals
- Allegations of transactions being genuine
- Findings regarding fictitious dealers and penalties

Delay in Refiling the Appeal:
The judgment begins by condoning an 11-day delay in refiling the appeal, setting the stage for the subsequent detailed analysis of the case.

Appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005:
The appeal was filed by the assessee under Section 68 of the Act against the order passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab. The appellant raised substantial questions of law, questioning the validity of the Tribunal's order.

Substantial Questions of Law Raised:
The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal included concerns about the Tribunal's order being perceived as perverse without evidence, the genuineness of goods purchased from a canceled firm, the Tribunal's failure to summon witnesses for documentary evidence, and the alleged violation of natural justice in the impugned order.

Imposition of Penalties and Dismissal of Appeals:
The case involved the imposition of penalties by various authorities, starting from penalties imposed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner to subsequent dismissal of appeals by different appellate bodies, leading to the current appeal before the High Court.

Allegations of Transactions Being Genuine:
The appellant contended that the sale transactions were genuine, disputing the authorities' characterization of the dealers involved as bogus and fictitious, which led to the imposition of penalties.

Findings Regarding Fictitious Dealers and Penalties:
After hearing the appellant's counsel, the Court found no merit in the appellant's contention. It was revealed that the appellant had misrepresented purchases from fictitious dealers to evade taxes, leading to penalties being imposed. The Tribunal had previously ordered a reassessment based on these findings, which were upheld in subsequent appeals.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's findings that the dealers in question were indeed fictitious and bogus. The Court found no errors in the Tribunal's factual findings, leading to the rejection of the appellant's appeal without any substantial question of law arising for consideration.