9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 823 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of penalty u/s 54(1)(14) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - import of goods from outside the State - Form 38 had certain unfilled (blank) column - existenc eof mens rea or not - contravention of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, 2008 - HELD THAT - In the instant case it is admitted fact that the respondent had duly applied for and obtained Form 38 for import of goods and the Column 6 of the said Form was left blank on account of negligence of the respondent. It is only on account of non filling of Column nos. 2 to 6, penalty has been imposed upon the respondent. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that there was no intention to evade tax and the driver of the vehicle carrying the goods was carrying all the relevant documents including the bill/challan/bilty etc. from which the details of goods being carried on the vehicle could have been verified by the officer concerned and therefore there was no occasion for the assessing officer to pass penalty order, inasmuch as there was no intention on the part of the assesee to evade tax. The vehicle 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 that some column of Form 38 found unfilled should have filled the same himself in the light of Circular dated 03.02.2009 and should have allowed the vehicle to proceed alongwith the goods. It is undisputed that the goods transported were the same which were mentioned in the various documents (bill/builty/challan etc.) carried by the driver of the vehicle. Revision dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Commercial Tax Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied under Section 54(1)(14) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the Commercial Tax Tribunal in Deleting the Penalty: The revision was filed by the revenue against the order dated 15.02.2013 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, which allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of the first Appellate Authority for the assessment year 2009-10. The primary legal question was whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. Facts: - The vehicle carrying goods was intercepted, and it was found that Form 38 had certain unfilled columns, leading to the suspicion of tax evasion. - The Assessing Authority issued a show cause notice and subsequently imposed a penalty of ?2,00,000/-. - The first appellate authority upheld the penalty, but the Trade Tax Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent, leading to the present revision by the revenue. Arguments by the Revenue: - The revenue argued that the unfilled columns in Form 38 indicated an intention to evade tax, relying on the judgment in M/s Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, where the Apex Court held that unfilled forms could be reused to evade tax. Arguments by the Respondent: - The respondent contended that the unfilled columns were due to negligence and not an intention to evade tax. The driver had all relevant documents, and the goods could be verified. - The respondent also presented a Circular dated 03.02.2009, which instructed that if any column in Form 38 remains unfilled, the inspecting officer should fill it and release the goods. Court's Analysis: - The court referred to the scheme of the Act, 2008, which mandates carrying a declaration form for importing goods into the state. - The court noted that non-filling of certain columns in Form 38 could lead to an inference of potential tax evasion but cannot be the sole ground for imposing a penalty. The intention to evade tax must be established. - The court cited previous judgments, including Jain Suddh Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and I.C.I. India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, which emphasized that mere procedural defects without an intention to evade tax do not justify penalties. - The court distinguished the present case from M/s Guljag Industries, noting that the provisions of the Act, 2008, applicable in Uttar Pradesh require mens rea (guilty mind) for imposing penalties. Conclusion: - The court found that the Tribunal's finding that there was no intention to evade tax was based on relevant materials and was not perverse. - The court upheld the Tribunal's order, affirming that the penalty was not justified as the goods were accompanied by relevant documents and the unfilled columns were due to human error. - The revision by the revenue was dismissed, and the question of law was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. Final Order: - The impugned order dated 15.02.2013, passed by the Tribunal, was affirmed. - The revision lacked merit and was dismissed.
|
