2018 (6) TMI 1636 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of consignment - electrical equipments - consignments duly accounted for by the appellant-assessee as also the purchasers - no further evidence to prove the attempt of evasion as alleged in the notice issued under Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - HELD THAT - The purchase orders were raised by the purchasing dealers on 30.9.2008 and 29.9.2008. The letter expressing shortage of space is on 30.9.2008. If there was such shortage of space, it is not clear as to why a purchase order was raised on the very same day or on the previous day. We do not think that the action of the consignor was above board and bona fide. The letters are an after thought and would not establish that the transport was bona fide. The facts noticed would indicate that there was one year's delay in the transport, that is from the date of invoice and the date of detention. However, there was no proceedings taken on the ground of such delay and the allegation was only of the invoice being not genuine. We do not think that this would in any manner help the assessee herein; nor is there any declaration that the delay would not entail penalty for tax evasion. The question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding alleged tax evasion in the transport of electrical goods by the appellant-assessee.

Analysis:
The case involved a manufacturer of electrical equipment transporting goods to retail dealers, which were detained due to suspicion of multiple transports. The Intelligence Officer imposed a penalty, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority. However, the Tribunal set aside the penalty based on accounting records and lack of evidence supporting tax evasion allegations.

The State argued that accounting could have been done after transport, allowing for potential multiple transports with the same invoice. The delay in transport raised suspicion of evasion, as multiple transports could have occurred unnoticed by the Department.

The respondent-assessee presented letters from purchasers claiming a shortage of space as the reason for not accepting the goods. However, the Court found the letters to be an afterthought, as purchase orders were issued on the same or previous days as the alleged shortage of space letter, casting doubt on the genuineness of the reasons provided.

The assessee cited a Supreme Court decision regarding transport delays, but the Court clarified that the decision was not applicable to the current case. The delay in transport from the date of the invoice to detention was not the basis of proceedings, and the penalty was imposed due to the invoice being deemed not genuine, not solely due to delay.

Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, setting aside the Tribunal's order and reinstating the penalties imposed by the lower authorities. The decision highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the assessee's claims and the suspicion raised by the delay in transport, leading to the conclusion of tax evasion attempts.