2017 (1) TMI 196 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty u/Sec.78(5) of the Act - driver/incharge of the vehicle produced Bill No.2114 dt.11.10.1997, Bilty No.228 dt.11.10.1997, and on the next date the owner of the transport company appeared before the Assessing Officer and produced Bill No.2113 dt.11.10.1997 - Held that - taking into consideration the fact that the driver/incharge has produced at least one bill on the spot bearing No.2114 dt.11.10.1997, the penalty is not leviable on the same and is so far as other bills which have been produced later-on the revenue is well justified and taking adverse view of the bills produced later-on - it would be appropriate to restrict & sustain the penalty only on such bills or bilty produced later-on and it would be appropriate to delete the penalty on the bill and bilty which was produced by the driver/incharge on the spot - appeal partly allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Sec.78(5) of the Act for alleged evasion of tax based on intercepted goods being carried without proper documentation.

Analysis:

1. Facts and Background:
The case involved a vehicle intercepted by Revenue department officers carrying goods from one location to another without proper documentation. The driver initially produced some bills and vouchers, but later additional bills were presented after a show cause notice was issued. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Sec.78(5) of the Act for alleged tax evasion.

2. Decision of Dy. Commissioner (A):
The matter was appealed, and the Dy. Commissioner (A) deleted the penalty, stating that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the intention of tax evasion by the driver.

3. Decision of Tax Board:
Upon further appeal by the Revenue, the Tax Board overturned the Dy. Commissioner's decision, upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, citing that the goods were being carried with the intention of tax evasion.

4. Arguments and Contentions:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the driver was coerced into admitting to tax evasion, highlighting the production of bills and vouchers both on the spot and later. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment to support the request for penalty deletion.

5. Court's Analysis and Decision:
The Court considered both parties' arguments and upheld the reasoning of the Assessing Officer and Tax Board. However, it noted that since the driver had produced a bill on the spot, the penalty should not apply to that particular bill. The penalty was deemed justified for the bills produced later. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to review the records and reduce the penalty accordingly.

6. Final Judgment:
The Court disposed of the petition, sustaining the penalty only on bills and bilty produced later, while deleting the penalty on the bill produced on the spot by the driver. The Assessing Officer was instructed to adjust the penalty accordingly based on this decision.