2019 (9) TMI 526 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - mis-declaration of goods - it was alleged that the goods were hosiery while in the bill the same were shown as knitted clothes - condonation of delay in filing appeal - HELD THAT - The learned Tribunal while dismissing the appeal has categorically held that there was mis-description of the goods; the goods were not being transported in a goods vehicle; and the books of accounts were not produced at the appropriate time and production thereof at a later stage was nothing but an afterthought. Condonation of delay - HELD THAT - It has been found that the appellate order dated 18. 12. 2014 was passed in the presence of the Chartered Account of the appellant and until and unless a specific objection is raised to the contrary, it would be presumed that the appellate order was received by the appellant in time. The said presumption remained unrebutted. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference. Invocation of Appellate Jurisdiction - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the petty amount of penalty being ₹ 90, 329/- we do not find it a fit case to invoke the Appellate jurisdiction of this Court in the instant appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal
2. Sustainability of order A-4
3. Presumption regarding communication of DETC order
4. Condonation of delay by the Tribunal

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in the hosiery business, was penalized under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for mis-description of goods. The appeal against the penalty was dismissed by the VAT Tribunal, Punjab, citing a delay of 320 days in filing the appeal. The first issue raised was whether the appeal was filed within 30 days of communication of the order. The Tribunal presumed the order was received in time as no specific objection was raised to the contrary. The High Court upheld this finding, stating that the presumption remained unrebutted, and declined to interfere due to the insignificant penalty amount.

2. The second issue questioned the sustainability of order A-4. The Tribunal had noted mis-description of goods, lack of transportation in a goods vehicle, and failure to produce books of accounts timely as reasons for dismissal. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing that the delay in filing the appeal was not the sole reason for dismissal, but also the deficiencies in compliance and evidence presentation by the appellant.

3. Regarding the presumption of communication of the DETC order, the third issue raised whether the Tribunal could draw a presumption against the appellant without proving the communication of the order. The High Court supported the Tribunal's stance, emphasizing that in the absence of a specific objection, the presumption of timely receipt of the order was valid. This further reinforced the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal.

4. The final issue pertained to the condonation of the delay by the Tribunal. The appellant sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal, considering the reasons for dismissal beyond just the delay, refused to condone the delay. The High Court concurred with this decision, highlighting that the delay, coupled with other deficiencies in compliance, did not warrant interference in the matter due to the nominal penalty amount involved.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision based on the findings related to mis-description of goods, lack of compliance, and the presumption of timely receipt of the order, along with the insignificant penalty amount as additional grounds for non-interference.

← Previous Next →