2018 (3) TMI 1219 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reversal of Input Tax Credit - interstate sale - Form C - penalty u/s 27(3) and 27(4) of the VAT Act - Held that - the tribunal has held that surgical items purchased from interstate were not the same items purchased locally. Sale statement substantiated that interstate sales without C-Forms were made of corresponding interstate purchases - the claim of respondents is found to be acceptable based on the facts and as a result we find no inconsistency in the orders of Appellate Deputy Commissioner in deleting the reversal along with penalty - revision dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of law regarding interstate sales without C form.
2. Verification of relevant records for penalty levied under Section 27(4) and 27(3) of the Act.
3. Consideration of evidence and findings by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.
4. Assessment of penalty under Section 27(3) based on stock difference.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of the law concerning interstate sales without C form. The Tribunal found that the surgical items purchased from interstate were not the same as those purchased locally. The sale statement indicated that the interstate sales without C-Forms were made from corresponding interstate purchases. The Tribunal upheld the findings based on the evidence presented.

2. Regarding the penalty levied under Section 27(4) and 27(3) of the Act, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner had set aside the reversal and penalty based on the dealers' contentions supported by sale bills. The State contended that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner did not verify the primary evidence of stock books and local purchases of similar goods. However, the Tribunal considered the details provided by both parties and confirmed the decision to delete the reversal and penalty.

3. The Tribunal assessed the penalty under Section 27(3) concerning stock difference. It held that the estimation of stock difference did not indicate willful suppression, and therefore, the penalty was deleted by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, stating that the penalty on the sale of assets was also appropriate as per the Act.

4. The court referred to various legal precedents to define the concept of a "perverse" finding in judicial decisions. It emphasized that a decision could be considered perverse if it is based on no evidence, thoroughly unreliable evidence, or if it defies logic. The court concluded that in this case, there was no evidence of perversity, and the findings were based on acceptable evidence, leading to the dismissal of the Tax Case (Revision).

Overall, the judgment focused on the proper interpretation of the law, verification of evidence, and adherence to legal precedents in determining the outcome of the case.