2020 (1) TMI 230 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty - discrepancy in Form 38, E-Sugam form - Section 54(1) (14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - HELD THAT - In the present case, the Truck was accompanied by Form 38 and all other documents were being carried along with other documents and only due to human error column would remain unfilled. It was the duty of the Officer managing the Check Post who after discovering column 8 of Form 38 found remain unfilled should have filled the said column himself in light of the notification dated 03.02.2009 and allowed the vehicle to proceed alongwith the goods. There are no merit in the finding recorded by the Commercial Tax Tribunal that revisionist has not produced any affidavit or any other evidence to canvas his claim regarding the fact there was no intention to evade tax. It is observed that it has been recorded by the authorities below that the vehicle carried the goods was accompanied by builty and other documents from which the goods could be verified and it is not the case of the Revenue that the vehicle was carrying either different goods or different quantity of goods, the details of which are mentioned in Form 38 and other documents which were carried by the truck driver. The judgment passed by this Court in the case of I.C.I. India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax 2003 (3) TMI 695 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has clearly speltout the law in this regard and a notification issued by the Revenue clearly indicates that the Officer managing the Check Post after verifying the goods should have filled up the Column 8 of Form 38 in accordance with the documents and there was no occasion for imposing a penalty as has been done by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commercial Tax Tribunal. Revision allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for non-filling of Column 8 in Form 38 during import of goods.
2. Interpretation of intention to evade tax based on incomplete documentation.
3. Applicability of legal precedents and notifications in penalty imposition cases.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the imposition of a penalty of &8377; 2,90,000 on the revisionist for leaving Column 8 of Form 38 unfilled during the import of goods. The revisionist argued that the penalty was unjust as it was a result of negligence, not an intention to evade tax. The penalty was initially imposed by the Assessing Officer and later upheld by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow.

2. The revisionist contended that there was no intention to evade tax as all relevant documents, including the bill, challan, and builty, were presented during inspection. The Joint Commissioner (Appeal) also found no evidence of tax evasion intention and ruled in favor of the revisionist. However, the Commercial Tax Tribunal reversed this decision, citing the possibility of tax evasion due to the unfilled column in Form 38.

3. The revisionist relied on a notification from the office of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P., which stated that if a vehicle importing goods is accompanied by Form 38 and the goods tally with the form, any unfilled columns should be completed by the inspecting officer. Additionally, the revisionist referenced a legal precedent (I.C.I. India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax) where a similar situation resulted in the penalty being quashed due to procedural defects and lack of evidence of tax evasion intent.

4. The High Court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, concluded that the penalty imposition was unjustified. The Court emphasized that the officer at the Check Post should have filled the unfilled column in accordance with the documents provided, as per the notification. The Court also highlighted that there was no evidence of different goods or quantities being carried, supporting the revisionist's claim of no intention to evade tax.

5. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the revision, quashing the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal and setting aside the penalty imposed on the revisionist. The Court's decision was based on the lack of evidence of tax evasion intent, procedural defects, and the duty of the inspecting officer to complete the necessary columns in Form 38.