2023 (2) TMI 96 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 - driver of the vehicle did not furnish the information in respect of Invoices No. 526 and 527 both dated 12.7.2006 and GR Nos. 9411 and 9412 - failure to produce books of account before the detaining officer - failure to give any explanation for not submitting the information in respect of above said two invoices - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case, sale was processed to be made to CRPF as per supply order (Annexure A-1) and all the information were given at the computer centre and all the documents were shown but when the goods were detained, other two invoices were also shown. The supply order was also shown which was given by the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Jalandhar. Hence, it was a sale which was made to Government Department and the appellant had also produced GRs and all the invoices at the time of checking. There was no attempt made by the driver not to show invoices before the detaining officer. Reference can now be made to judgment passed in STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHREE RAM PANELS 2011 (8) TMI 1027 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the order of Tribunal as the Tribunal had accepted the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the imposition of penalty on the ground that there was no violation of Section 51(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act with a view to make an attempt to evade tax as the driver of the vehicle was in possession of goods receipts alongwith invoices and produced the same as well. In the facts of the present case, the appellant was making sale to Government Department all over India as the supply order was given by the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Jalandhar and the driver had produced 5 documents before the computer centre at ICC but VAT-XXXVI could not generate and at the time of checking, apart from 5 documents two invoices No. 526 and 527 dated 12.7.2006 and GR Nos. 9411 and 9412 were also produced. Since the respondents, in the present case, were not disputing the fact that the sale was being made to CRPF and only on account of non-generation of VAT-XXXVI, penalty could not have been imposed - The driver is not required to give any information with respect to details of the invoices. He is to only produce documents to show that there was a supply order and GRs had been issued and he was taking the goods to their destination outside the State. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that the two invoices No. 526 and 527 did not issue to CRPF. Hence, once the Government Department had accepted the invoices produced at I.C.C., there was no occasion not to accept Invoices No. 648, 225 and 8 dated 12.07.06. Similarly, invoices No. 526 and 527 were also issued on the same date i.e. 12.07.2006 with respect to supply order (Annexure A-1). The driver was not expected to know details of the supply order - in the present case, the driver had produced the documents at I.C.C. and subsequently at the time of checking, he showed all the invoices. There was no attempt to evade tax. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005.
2. Validity of documents and intention to evade tax.
3. Generation of Form VAT-XXXVI and non-production of certain invoices.
4. Comparison with previous judicial precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005:
The appellant, M/s. Punjab Wool Syndicate, appealed against the order dated 05.03.2010, which upheld a penalty of Rs. 69,952/- under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005. The penalty was imposed due to the non-furnishing of information regarding Invoices No. 526 and 527 at the Information Collection Centre (ICC).

2. Validity of documents and intention to evade tax:
The appellant argued that all necessary documents, including invoices and goods receipts (GRs), were furnished at the ICC. The goods were meant for the Central Government Department (CRPF), and there was no intention to evade tax. The appellant cited several judgments to support the contention that possessing all necessary documents negates the intention to evade tax.

3. Generation of Form VAT-XXXVI and non-production of certain invoices:
The driver of the vehicle presented multiple invoices and GRs at the ICC for the generation of Form VAT-XXXVI. However, two invoices (No. 526 and 527) were not included in the generated form due to an oversight. The appellant argued that the driver is not expected to know the details of each invoice and that all documents were eventually produced.

4. Comparison with previous judicial precedents:
The court referenced several cases to draw parallels:
- In M/s. Jain Industrial Company v. State of Punjab, non-generation of Form No. XXXVI for certain invoices was seen as an attempt to evade tax.
- In M/s. Ganpati Foods v. The State of Punjab, the court ruled that non-generation of the declaration form due to the driver's ignorance does not amount to an attempt to evade tax if all documents are genuine.
- In State of Punjab v. Shree Ram Panels, the court held that possession of valid invoices and GRs negates the intention to evade tax.
- In M/s. Balaji Trading Company v. The State of Haryana, the court emphasized that genuine transactions with government organizations should not attract penalties based solely on the driver's statements.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant was making a sale to a government department (CRPF), and all necessary documents were produced at the ICC, albeit with an oversight in generating Form VAT-XXXVI. The driver had no intention to evade tax, and the penalty under Section 51(7)(c) was unjustified. The VAT appeal was allowed, and the penalty order dated 05.03.2010 was set aside. The court emphasized that the driver's lack of knowledge about the invoices should not lead to a penalty if all documents are eventually produced and verified. The pending application, if any, was disposed of.