2017 (1) TMI 963 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of order u/s 48(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - at that time of seizure of the vehicle, none of the relevant documents were available in the vehicle - Held that - seizure had taken place at Kushinagar, which does not fall in the way, if the goods were been sent to M/s Goel Edible Ltd, Industrial area at Sant Kabir Nagar. Statements of the driver has also been relied upon, according to which the wheat was being taken to Bihar. The authorities have further found that there was an interpolation in the stock register, and over writing clearly suggest that the assessee subsequently, was trying to alter the records so as to explain the transaction in its own account. The fact that the goods were seized at a place which does not situate upon the route on which such goods were being transported; the interpolation in the records in the stock register etc. are relevant facts, and opinion based thereupon to hold that the accounts have not been properly maintained, and that there was an intention to evade payment of tax, cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse so as to warrant any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision fails - decided against revisionist.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 48(5) of the Act for evasion of tax.
2. Conditions necessary for passing an order under Section 48(5) of the Act.
3. Evaluation of evidence and findings by the authorities regarding evasion of tax.
4. Challenge to the authorities' findings and defense put forth by the revisionist.
5. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 48(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the challenge to an order imposing a penalty under Section 48(5) of the Act for alleged evasion of tax. The order was based on the interception of goods being transported without proper documentation. The authorities initiated proceedings upon finding discrepancies in the records and questioning the intention behind the transportation of goods.

2. The conditions necessary for invoking Section 48(5) of the Act were highlighted by the revisionist's counsel, emphasizing the requirement that goods must be omitted from accounts or not properly accounted for, along with the presence of an intention to evade tax. The revisionist argued that these conditions were not met in the present case, as proper documentation had been provided, including gate passes and tax invoices.

3. The authorities relied on evidence such as the location of the seizure, statements of the driver, and discrepancies in the stock register to support their findings of evasion of tax. They concluded that the accounts were not maintained properly, and the transaction was not genuine but an attempt to evade tax. The authorities' decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 48(5) and their assessment of the evidence presented.

4. The revisionist challenged the authorities' findings, disputing the interpretation of facts and the intention behind the transportation of goods. However, the court found the evidence presented by the authorities to be sufficient to support their conclusions. The court noted that the interception location and discrepancies in the records were crucial factors in determining the evasion of tax.

5. The judgment interpreted the provisions of Section 48(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and the intention to evade tax for invoking penalties under the section. The court upheld the authorities' decision based on the evidence and findings presented, concluding that the revisionist's challenge did not provide enough grounds for interference in the revisional jurisdiction.