2016 (4) TMI 920 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of advance tax and penalty equivalent to three times of tax - Section 75(6) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Department contended that the consignee had issued two delivery notes to the consignor for the same consignment on the same date which were not found to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Also the Driver failed to produce Excise Gate Pass in movement of the said goods from the factory and relevant form of the Commercial Tax Department of Uttar Pradesh despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities. Held that - we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Commissioner of Taxes. The findings of Commissioner are well founded and unassailable. The petitioner could not point out any illegality in the impugned order. No ground for interference is made out. - Decided against the petitioner

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner of Taxes dismissing Revision Petition CVAT-1/09(A)/63 against order of Superintendent of Taxes, Boxirhat regarding seizure of goods and imposition of advance tax and penalty under Section 75(6) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to the order of the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, dismissing a revision petition against the order of the Superintendent of Taxes, Boxirhat, regarding the seizure of goods and imposition of advance tax and penalty under Section 75(6) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner's vehicle, carrying TV sets, was checked at a check post where discrepancies were found between the documents and the physical verification. The Superintendent of Taxes imposed a tax and penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Taxes.

The petitioner submitted explanations and additional documents to support their case, including documents related to the seizure of the vehicle in Uttar Pradesh. However, the Superintendent of Taxes found the explanations unsatisfactory, noting discrepancies in the documents provided and the lack of certain required documents such as the Excise Gate Pass. The Superintendent proceeded to assess the advance tax and penalty, leading to the imposition of a significant amount as payable by the petitioner.

The Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, after considering the submissions and evidence, including the additional documents provided by the petitioner, upheld the decision of the Superintendent of Taxes. The Commissioner found that the explanations and documents provided were not sufficient to support the petitioner's contentions. The Commissioner noted discrepancies in the documents submitted and raised concerns about the authenticity of certain documents, ultimately concluding that there was an attempt to evade tax under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Upon review, the High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, concurred with the decision of the Commissioner of Taxes. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned order and determined that there were no grounds for interference. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Taxes and upholding the imposition of the advance tax and penalty as per the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.