9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 717 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRecovery of pending VAT dues - detention of truck - seizure of goods - Form No.403 - Held that - a statutory authority vested with jurisdiction must exercise it according to its own discretion. Discretion exercised under the direction or instruction of some higher authority is failure to exercise discretion altogether - The respondents are directed to forthwith release the truck of the petitioner which has been unauthorizedly detained by them. Imposition of penalty - GVAT Act, 2006 - subsection (5) of section 68 of the GVAT Act - Held that - there is a lack of application of mind on the part of the Commercial Tax Officer, as no reasons have been assigned for imposition of the maximum rate of penalty - while passing the order, the Commercial Tax Officer shall independently apply his mind to the question of penalty without in any manner being influenced by the instructions issued by the Deputy Commissioner - penalty imposed not sustainable - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure and detention of the truck and goods under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. Authority of the Commercial Tax Officer to impose a 150% penalty. 3. Validity of the Commercial Tax Officer acting under the directions of a superior authority. 4. Requirement for independent application of mind by the Commercial Tax Officer. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Seizure and Detention of the Truck and Goods: The petitioner contested the seizure of their truck and goods at the Shamlaji Check Post on the grounds of not carrying Form No.403. The court examined sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 68 of the GVAT Act, which empower the officer-in-charge to seize goods and detain the vehicle, but not to seize the vehicle. The court highlighted that the Gujarat Value Added Tax (Amendment Act), 2006, specifically removed the power to seize the vehicle, limiting the authority to detaining the vehicle only to facilitate the seizure of goods. Therefore, the continued detention of the truck was deemed unauthorized and beyond the powers conferred by the GVAT Act. 2. Authority of the Commercial Tax Officer to Impose a 150% Penalty: The petitioner argued that the imposition of a 150% penalty was without proper justification. The court noted that the impugned order lacked any reasons for imposing the maximum penalty. The communication from the Deputy Commissioner directing the imposition of a 150% penalty indicated that the Commercial Tax Officer did not independently apply his mind, but acted under the superior's instructions. The court found this to be a failure to exercise discretion as required by law. 3. Validity of the Commercial Tax Officer Acting Under Directions of a Superior Authority: The court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in CIT v. Greenworld Corpn. and Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that a statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction independently and not under the directions of a higher authority. The Commercial Tax Officer's action under the Deputy Commissioner's instructions was deemed a failure to exercise independent discretion, rendering the order invalid. 4. Requirement for Independent Application of Mind by the Commercial Tax Officer: The court stressed the necessity for the Commercial Tax Officer to independently apply his mind when imposing penalties. The absence of reasons for the 150% penalty and the influence of the superior's directions led the court to conclude that the order was vitiated. The court directed the Commercial Tax Officer to re-examine the imposition of the penalty, ensuring an independent and reasoned decision. Judgment: The court quashed the impugned order dated 10.02.2016, directing the respondents to release the truck and goods upon payment of the tax amount. The matter was remanded to the Commercial Tax Officer for reconsideration of the penalty, with instructions to independently apply his mind and provide reasons for his decision. The court made the rule absolute with no order as to costs, permitting direct service. Conclusion: The court's judgment underscored the importance of statutory authorities exercising their powers independently and within the limits of the law. The seizure of the truck was found unauthorized, and the imposition of the 150% penalty was invalid due to the lack of independent application of mind and the influence of superior instructions.
|
