2019 (3) TMI 233 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty - non-production of one Invoice for 25 health monitors - GR produced contained the full quantity of goods during voluntary reporting of goods at the time of entry into State at the ICC - Held that - It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that undisputedly there were 55 multipara monitors in the vehicle. The goods receipt so produced also indicated the same number of monitors. The assessee produced VAT invoice for only 30 multipara monitors when the goods were apprehended and the goods did not coordinate to the goods receipt and VAT invoice No. 00156 dated 09.07.2013 related to only 30 monitors. It has been further recorded by the Tribunal that while preparing VAT XXVIA of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Himachal Pradesh, the assessee furnished the information to the Excise and Taxation Department, Himachal Pradesh that there were only 30 monitors - It was concluded by the Tribunal that there was intention to evade the tax on the part of the assessee. With regard to penalty under Section 51(12) of the PVAT Act, it was recorded that since the transporters had disclosed the information regarding the consignor and consignee of the goods, therefore, no offence under Section 51(12) of the PVAT Act was made out. Consequently, penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of PVAT Act was imposed to the tune of ₹ 7,87,500/-. The findings of fact recorded by the authorities below have not been shown to be illegal or perverse by the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, warranting interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues:
1. Delay in refiling the appeal condoned.
2. Appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against order dated 02.05.2017.
3. Dispute regarding penalty for nonproduction of one Invoice for 25 health monitors.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 51(7)(c) instead of Section 51(7)(b) read with Section 51(6)(b) and 51(4).
5. Allegation of intention to evade tax by the appellant.
6. Applicability of penalties under Section 51(12) and Section 51(7)(c) of PVAT Act.
7. Comparison with previous judgments in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The delay in refiling the appeal was condoned by the High Court.
2. The appellant-assessee filed an appeal under Section 68 of the PVAT Act against the Tribunal's order dated 02.05.2017, questioning the penalty for nonproduction of an invoice for 25 health monitors.
3. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the documents presented by the appellant regarding the number of monitors in the vehicle, leading to suspicion of tax evasion.
4. The Tribunal imposed a penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the PVAT Act, deviating from the appellant's argument for a different penalty section application.
5. The Tribunal concluded that there was an intention to evade tax based on the discrepancies in the documents and the sequence of events related to the invoice production.
6. The Tribunal differentiated between penalties under Section 51(12) and Section 51(7)(c) of the PVAT Act, imposing a penalty of ?7,87,500 under Section 51(7)(c) instead of the initial ?10,12,726.
7. Previous judgments were cited to highlight the importance of document verification and the genuineness of information provided to avoid penalties under the PVAT Act.
8. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the case and dismissed the appeal, leaving the issue of delay condonation open due to the appeal dismissal on merits.

← Previous Next →