2020 (3) TMI 821 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty u/s 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Added Tax Act - blank From-38 - Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act? HELD THAT - The aforesaid question of law is infact a question of fact and the Tribunal being last forum for recording the findings of fact has given finding of fact that there was no intention on the part of the respondent to evade tax and therefore, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondent - This Court has perused the order of the Tribunal and do not find any infirmity in the same and no interference is required by this Court. The question raised by the revisionist is infact a question of fact and the same is accordingly decided in favour of the respondent and against the Revenue/revisionist. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order allowing second appeal by the respondent.
2. Penalty imposition under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act.
3. Legal justification for deleting the penalty by the Commercial Tax Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The revisionist challenged the order allowing the second appeal by the respondent related to the assessment year 2008-09. The goods carried by a vehicle were intercepted by the Commercial Tax Department, and the driver was found with a blank Form-38, leading to suspicion of tax evasion. The first appellate authority and the Commercial Tax Tribunal both played a role in the appeal process.

2. The assessing authority imposed a penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act due to the blank Form-38, suspecting an intention to evade tax. However, the Tribunal found that the unfilled form alone did not prove tax evasion intent. The Tribunal noted that the driver had all necessary documents, and the responsibility to fill the form lay with the revisionist.

3. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was based on the fact that the assessing authority failed to prove the dealer's intention to evade tax solely based on the blank Form-38. A notification highlighted the procedure for dealing with unfilled forms, emphasizing the importance of inspecting accompanying documents. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, considering it a factual finding and found no reason to interfere, ultimately dismissing the revision for lacking merit.