2023 (4) TMI 1067 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - failure to produce any document and failure to explain the manner in which the goods were being transported from Delhi to Haryana - case of tax evasion - levy of tax with penalty - HELD THAT - The arguments raised by the appellant lack any merit. Admittedly, the goods i.e. kabuli chana kept in 330 bags was being transported by the appellant from Delhi to Kundli, District Sonepat i.e. in the State of Haryana. It has come on record that when the goods were brought from Delhi to State of Haryana, no original Form DVAT-33 which was required to be statutorily issued had been shown by the driver. When the authorized representative of the appellant had appeared before the Detaining Authority, even at that time only photocopy of Form DVAT-33 had been shown which was not found to be complete as neither the serial number of the vehicle in which the goods were transported, signatures of the consignor and consignee nor the goods receipts accompanying the transaction showing the destination of the goods to be delivered were shown. As such, the stand taken by the appellant that the goods were being sent for storage purposes only had not at all been substantiated. It is revealed from the impugned order as passed by the Tribunal that it was only before the First Appellate Authority that some documents issued by one M/s Dhingra Cold Storage were tried to be shown by the appellant though at stage, such document could not be taken into consideration as Section 33 (3) of the Act, 2003 specifically bars acceptance of the same in appeal proceedings. The Tribunal after considering all facts and circumstances had passed a well reasoned order which for the reasons mentioned, calls for no interference - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal under Section 36 of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 against the order of the Haryana Tax Tribunal regarding the detention of goods being transported without proper documents.

Issue 1: Detention of Goods and Penalty Imposition
The appellant, a registered dealer under Delhi VAT Act and CST Act, transported goods to a cold storage in Haryana for storage purposes. The goods were detained during transportation without proper documents, leading to a penalty of Rs. 1,08,000 imposed by the detaining officer. The appellant challenged the detention, arguing that the penalty was unjust as the goods were for storage only and no tax evasion was intended.

Issue 2: Substantial Questions of Law
The appellant raised three substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the detaining officer's same-day order was illegal without proper consideration.
2. Whether the detaining officer violated natural justice by not conducting an independent enquiry.
3. Whether the Tribunal's findings were perverse in nature.

Judgment:
The appellant contended that the impugned order was flawed as the appellant's explanation at the time of detention was ignored, and documentary evidence was not considered. The appellant argued that the penalty was wrongly imposed, and principles of natural justice were violated. The appellant cited a relevant authority to support the argument.

In contrast, the State counsel argued that the goods were detained due to lack of proper documentation during transportation in Haryana, indicating potential tax evasion. The appellant's explanation was considered but deemed insufficient as no genuine documents were produced to prove the goods were for storage purposes.

After reviewing the arguments and evidence, the Court found no merit in the appellant's claims. The appellant failed to substantiate that the goods were solely for storage purposes, as required documents were not provided. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it considered all relevant facts and circumstances. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Outcome:
The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the detention of goods and penalty imposition was upheld.