2020 (2) TMI 1065 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty u/s 54(1)(14) of UP VAT Act, 2008 - detention of goods on the ground that goods being carried as well as weighing is different from the details of goods and weight disclosed in the documents produced by the revisionist - HELD THAT - The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had deliberately not disclosed correct measurement of tiles being carried with intention to evade tax. The Tribunal has clearly mentioned that penalty order was passed only after considering all the documents being carried by the vehicle and even on inspection by the Assessing Authority it was found that the truck was carrying 1598 sq. ft. goods in excess then what was disclosed in the documents accompanying the vehicle. The Tribunal has also been persuaded by the fact that the assessee had voluntarily deposited the penalty amount without raising any objection with regard to the nature and quantity of goods. From perusal of order of the Tribunal, which is final fact finding authority, it is clear that the goods being carried by the revisionist from Rajasthan to Lucknow the documents had clearly disclosed that the goods were weighing more than what was actually disclosed by the assessee. The weight of the goods was found in excess than that was found declared in the documents accompanying the goods. The Tribunal also recorded that the Assessing Authority found 1598 sq. ft. goods in excess - From perusal of Section 50 read with Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008, it is clear that if any objection is raised that nature and quantity of goods is different then what has been declared, penalty proceedings can be drawn against the assessee. Considering all the facts the Tribunal has recorded that the details of goods being transported by the assessee, have not been disclosed correctly. This Court do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal, which may require interference - revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of Commercial Tax Tribunal on excess quantity of transporting goods, demand of proof, failure to record reasons for new facts, doctrine of estoppel, minor error in judgment, ignoring established legal principles, disputed penalty order.

Analysis:
1. Excess Quantity of Transporting Goods:
The revisionist challenged the Tribunal's order on excess quantity of transporting goods without physical verification. The Tribunal found discrepancies between declared and actual measurements, concluding the revisionist intentionally misrepresented to evade tax. The Tribunal considered all documents and physical inspection, leading to penalty imposition.

2. Demand of Proof:
The revisionist questioned the Tribunal's demand for proof from them instead of the respondent. The Tribunal justified its decision based on evidence and material, imposing penalties after due process. The revisionist failed to provide additional material to challenge the Tribunal's findings.

3. Failure to Record Reasons for New Facts:
The revisionist argued the Tribunal's failure to record reasons for new facts within 18 days, invoking the doctrine of estoppel. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on thorough consideration of evidence, documents, and legal precedents, dismissing the revisionist's claim.

4. Minor Error in Judgment:
The revisionist contended a minor error in the judgment regarding a terming issue, but the Tribunal upheld its decision based on factual findings and legal principles. The Tribunal's reliance on established legal principles and evidence supported its judgment.

5. Ignoring Established Legal Principles:
The revisionist accused the Tribunal of ignoring established legal principles, including the need for physical verification and the limitations of suspicion as evidence. However, the Tribunal justified its decision based on factual analysis and adherence to relevant legal precedents.

6. Disputed Penalty Order:
The revisionist challenged the disputed penalty order on extraneous considerations and perverse findings. Despite the revisionist's arguments, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, as it found no errors warranting interference.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revision, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The Court found no errors in the Tribunal's order, as it was based on thorough analysis of facts, evidence, and legal principles. The questions of law were answered accordingly, and the revision was deemed devoid of merits.