2017 (7) TMI 1216 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty - intent to evade - Whether in the facts and circumstances there is any legal evidence available on record to sustain the findings of the Authorities Below that the appellant had brought the goods from Delhi through escape route in a situation when the goods were admittedly taken possession from within the Town? Held that - It was observed by the Designated Officer that the goods were not covered by proper and genuine documents and there was attempt to evade the tax. If the dealer had sold the scrap then he was required to mention the same in the invoices. The scrap so loaded in the vehicles was not covered by the genuine documents and the bills regarding the rolling material were procured with an intention to keep the goods out of the account books - Thus, it was concluded by the Tribunal that there was intention to evade the tax. The appellant-assessee has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal under Section 68(1) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against the order dated 10.3.2016, Annexure A.3, passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal (Appeal No. 20 of 2014) on substantial questions of law regarding the import of goods, mis-description, tax evasion, and legality of penalty orders.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-assessee imported rolling material through valid documents in Four Trucks, but the goods were detained at the exit point due to mis-description. The Detaining Officer alleged an attempt to evade tax and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The appellant argued that there was no mis-description as the goods were scrap, and entry tax was paid.

2. The Tribunal found that the documents related to rolling material, not scrap, and there was an intention to evade tax. The invoices and GRs did not match the goods, and the dealer misrepresented the nature of goods to pay lower tax. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant knowingly attempted to evade tax by concealing true facts and misrepresenting the goods to authorities.

3. The appellant challenged the penalty orders, claiming no mis-description and lawful import of goods. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty based on evidence showing mis-description and intent to evade tax. The Tribunal's findings were based on discrepancies between the documents and actual goods, indicating a deliberate attempt to avoid paying the appropriate tax.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence, including invoices, GRs, and the nature of goods imported. The appellant failed to demonstrate any legal errors or flaws in the authorities' findings. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings of mis-description and tax evasion.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty for mis-description and tax evasion was deemed legally sound, as the appellant's actions indicated a deliberate attempt to evade tax by misrepresenting the goods. The appeal under Section 68(1) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was dismissed, affirming the penalty imposed for the attempt to evade tax through mis-description and concealment of true facts during import.