9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 174 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImposition of penalty u/s 48 (5) of UP Value Added Tax Act - Whether the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal was justified in upholding the seizure of the goods i.e. yarn by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Mobile Squad IV Unit, Lucknow? - HELD THAT - The stand taken by the revisionist that in pursuance of the order dated 14.8.2009, the goods were neither ready nor could be delivered on 14.8.2009 by UP State Spinning Co.Ltd., Barabanki due to unavoidable circumstances. As and when the goods were ready, same was dispatched. The said contention of the assessee is not based on any material or documentary evidence on record. The revisionist has neither filed any document nor any material to support his contention. On the contrary, along with the revision, a letter dated 15.4.2011 has been annexed but the said letter or any affidavit was neither filed at the time of interception of the goods nor prior to passing of seizure order nor passing the penalty order and nor before passing the order of the first appellate authority. The authorities were justified to draw the inference against the dealer that whatever stand is being taken by the revisionist at the time of passing of the penalty order is an afterthought - The record shows that the goods were dispatched from the factory of UP State Spinning Co. Ltd. on 20.8.2019. Revision dismissed.
Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes 2. Appreciation of Memo of Appeal by Commercial Tax Tribunal 3. Invocation of provisions under Section 47 and Section 48 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2008 4. Findings of Commercial Tax Tribunal in line with material on record 5. Disparagement of illegalities committed by First Appellate Authority 6. Appreciation of legal views expressed by judicial pronouncements Seizure of Goods: The revisionist, a registered dealer involved in sale and purchase of staple yarn, challenged the seizure of goods while being transported from Barabanki to Kanpur. The goods were intercepted and seized by the Mobile Squad, Unit-IV, Lucknow, demanding a sum for release. The revisionist argued that the goods were covered by valid tax invoices and wrongly seized. Appreciation of Memo of Appeal: The revisionist raised questions regarding the justification of the Commercial Tax Tribunal in not appreciating the content of the Memo of Appeal. The Tribunal's failure to consider the details and arguments presented in the Memo of Appeal was a point of contention. Invocation of Provisions under VAT Act: The revisionist questioned the Tribunal's decision regarding the invocation of provisions under Section 47 and Section 48 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The legal basis for the Tribunal's decision and its alignment with the provisions of the VAT Act were under scrutiny. Findings and Legal Justification: The Commercial Tax Tribunal's findings were challenged for not being in line with the material on record. The revisionist argued that the seizure and penalty proceedings were unjust and should be set aside based on legal justifications and evidence presented. Disparagement of Illegalities: The Tribunal's treatment of the illegalities committed by the First Appellate Authority was questioned. The revisionist sought clarification on whether the Tribunal was justified in disparaging the illegal actions of the First Appellate Authority. Appreciation of Legal Views: The revisionist contended that the Commercial Tax Tribunal failed to appreciate the legal views expressed in various judicial pronouncements. The alignment of the Tribunal's decision with established legal principles and precedents was a key issue raised. In the judgment, it was observed that the goods were intercepted with tax invoices but lacked necessary accompanying documents as per legal requirements. The revisionist's arguments regarding the timing of dispatch and receipt of goods were not supported by concrete evidence. The Tribunal found the inference drawn against the dealer to be justified, indicating a lack of proper documentation and pre-authenticated tax invoices. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, dismissing the revision and answering the legal questions accordingly.
|
