2019 (7) TMI 2027 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of penalty imposed on a truck driver for discrepancies in a road permit while transporting goods - in the road permit, the truck number was not mentioned and the truck had entered through the different entry point in the State of Jharkhand - violation of Section 72 (3) (a) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act and Rule 42(2) framed therein - HELD THAT - According to the road permit, which was issued on 01.01.2016, the consignment was shown to have left the destination on 01.01,2016 itself. By no stretch of imagination it could have taken more than one day to reach the entry point at Jharkhand, where the consignment was apprehended, which, as per the order passed by the Appellate Authority, was at a distance of only about 270 Kms - The order of the Appellate Authority shows that there is difference in the amount shown in the tax invoice as also in the 'Sugam G'. Even in the tax invoice, the number of the vehicle is missing. In that view of the matter, it could not be held that the non-mentioning of the vehicle number in the tax invoice or in the 'Sugam G' road permit, was not with the intention to evade the tax, and since the vehicle was found to be entering the State of Jharkhand through a different entry point, that too after inordinate delay from the date of dispatch without any reasonable cause, the chances of the deliberate attempt to evade the tax liability, could not be ruled out. The form 'Sugam G' is statutory in nature, having been prescribed to ensure prevention of evasion of tax liability, and in such cases the strict compliance of the mandates of law are required to be followed, to avoid any reasonable apprehension of evasion of tax liability. There are no merit even in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. The notice to appear before the Commercial Taxes Officer, was served upon the petitioner personally, five days in advance, and by no stretch of imagination it could be held to be insufficient time given to the petitioner. There are no illegality in the impugned orders passed either by the Commercial Taxes Officer, or the Appellate Authority, or even by the Tribunal, confirming the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, being the driver of the truck, carrying the consignment, with the defective road permit - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of penalty imposed on a truck driver for discrepancies in a road permit while transporting goods.

Facts:
The petitioner, a truck driver, was carrying a consignment of Canopy DG sets from Kolkata to Ranchi with a road permit that had missing details such as the truck number and a different entry point. The truck was intercepted, and the driver was penalized for alleged tax evasion.

Appellate Proceedings:
The petitioner challenged the penalty before the Appellate Authority, claiming no intention to evade tax as all other particulars were filled correctly. However, the Appellate Authority upheld the penalty citing discrepancies in the permit.

Tribunal Decision:
The petitioner further appealed to the Tribunal, which affirmed the penalty imposed by the Commercial Taxes Officer and the Appellate Authority.

Petitioner's Arguments:
The petitioner contended that the penalty was unjust as it was a bona fide mistake and argued that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the penalty was imposed.

State's Response:
The State argued that the penalty was justified under Section 72(3) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act for carrying defective documents.

Court's Analysis:
The Court noted discrepancies in the permit and the delay in reaching the entry point, indicating a possible attempt to evade tax. The Court found no merit in the argument that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ application, upholding the penalty imposed on the petitioner for carrying a consignment with a defective road permit.