2016 (12) TMI 7 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of penalty - evasion of sales tax - Detention of goods and truck - inter-state sale or intra-state sale - Held that - A concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the authorities including the Tribunal that the statement of the driver of the truck was recorded on oath and he narrated the events in detail starting from the place at Indore where the goods in questions were actually loaded and terminating with the point where the tanker was intercepted. The Tribunal has found that the statement of the driver was not under any pressure, but it was given by him on oath. Under the circumstances, it was established by the department that the goods were imported by the assessee from Indore (MP) from undisclosed dealer and the same was attempted to be transported under the cover of bill issued by the assessee from Agra with intent to evade payment of tax. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal upholding imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under Section 15A (1)(0) of the Act. Since, this Court has upheld the penalty and found the transaction in question to be evaded sale of the assessee and as such determination of turn over of imported refined oil by the assessing authority as upheld by the Tribunal to the extent of ₹ 17 lacs is wholly justified. The Tribunal itself has considered the facts in detail and substantially reduced the turnover of imported reined oil from ₹ 70 lacs to 17 lacs. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order of Tribunal. No question of law arises. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) for Assessment Year 1999-2000.
2. Reduction in the turnover of imported refined oil from ?70 lacs to ?17 lacs.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the imposition of a penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The case involved a tanker loaded with refined soya oil intercepted by Trade Tax Authorities. The driver's statement indicated the goods were imported from Indore, not from the assessee's business place in Agra. Despite the driver's statement and accompanying documents, the authorities imposed a penalty of ?1,80,000. The assessee appealed, and the penalty was reduced to ?50,000 by the Tribunal. The counsel for the assessee argued that no basis existed for the penalty as the goods were duly recorded in the accounts, and the documents were genuine. However, the Standing Counsel contended that the goods were not loaded from the assessee's business place, but from Indore, to evade tax. The Court upheld the penalty, stating that the documents conflicted with the driver's statement, and the goods were imported from Indore to evade tax.

2. The second issue concerns the reduction in the turnover of imported refined oil from ?70 lacs to ?17 lacs. The Tribunal upheld the turnover reduction after finding that the goods were imported from Indore by the assessee to evade tax, as evidenced by the driver's statement and accompanying documents. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, stating that the transaction was an evaded sale, justifying the turnover determination. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as it had considered the facts in detail and substantially reduced the turnover. Ultimately, both revisions were dismissed, as no question of law arose, and the penalties were upheld.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) and the reduction in the turnover of imported refined oil from ?70 lacs to ?17 lacs, as both decisions were deemed justified based on the facts and evidence presented during the case proceedings.