2015 (12) TMI 52 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Restoration of the penalty - transporting goods without valid document - Held that - The material on record clearly establishes that on an investigation by the authorities, some other documents on which reliance was placed by the transporter were found to be not genuine. It is not a case of avoidance of tax by the transporter. It is a case of transporting goods without valid document. When the transporter is unable to produce confirmation letter from the persons from whom he received the goods for transportation, nothing more requires to be done. In all cases where genuinely he received the document from the consignor, on being satisfied about the genuineness, the authorities have cleared those goods. It is only in cases where there was no consignor at all and the documents on which reliance was placed was found to be not genuine, action has been taken. The Tribunal was also justified in imposing additional penalty. In these circumstances, we do not see any justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to restoration of penalty order by first appellate authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a transporter based in Bangalore, challenged the restoration of a penalty order by the first appellate authority. The petitioner's goods vehicle transporting goods from Delhi to Southern States was stopped at a check post in Bangalore due to doubts about the genuineness of the documents. Subsequently, a penalty was proposed and later levied. The first appellate authority deleted the penalty, but the Appellate Tribunal restored it, finding that the tax invoices were not genuine and the goods were transported without valid documents.

The petitioner argued that all necessary documents were provided to the check post officer, and there was no tax evasion as the authorities allowed a substantial portion of the goods to be transported. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in reinstating the penalty. On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate supported the Tribunal's decision.

The court found that some documents relied upon by the transporter were not genuine, indicating a case of transporting goods without valid documents rather than tax evasion. The court noted that when the transporter failed to produce confirmation letters from consignors, action was taken only in cases where there was no genuine consignor and the documents were found to be fake. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to impose an additional penalty, concluding that there was no justification to interfere with the order.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Revision Petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision to restore the penalty order.