2024 (5) TMI 984 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty u/s 53(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - discrepancies in the documents tendered by the person incharge of the vehicle - HELD THAT - The transport of arecanut was being done by the Assessee from Puttur to Diu and Delhi and the place at which the vehicle of the Assessee was intercepted i.e., Shiradhi Ghat was not the ordinary route to reach the place of destination. Further, it was also noticed that in the documents issued the vehicle number was also not mentioned. Hence, noticing the various discrepancies the statutory authorities have categorically recorded a finding that there was an intention to evade tax by the Assessee. Further, in view of the discrepancies noticed, the Assessee was imposed with a penalty. In the present case, the statutory authorities have categorically recorded a finding of fact that there has been various irregularities in the petitioner carrying the goods as required under Section 53 (2) of the KVAT Act - the authorities having recorded concurrent findings of fact that there has been non compliance of the requisite provisions of the KVAT Act, inasmuch as the petitioner was not carrying the required documents at the time of transportation. Hence, it cannot be said that the Assessee has the necessary documents in terms of Section 53 (2) of the KVAT Act. It is clear that no question of law arises for consideration in the present revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit at the stage of admission itself.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a revision petition filed by the Assessee challenging a penalty imposed under Section 53(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The issues include discrepancies in transportation documents, non-compliance with statutory provisions, and the imposition of penalty for tax evasion.

Summary:

Issue 1: Challenge to Penalty Imposed under KVAT Act

The Assessee, a transport contractor, challenged a penalty imposed by the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) under Section 53(12) of the KVAT Act. The penalty was confirmed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and upheld by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT). The Assessee contended that a substantial question of law arose regarding the levy of penalty.

Issue 2: Discrepancies in Transportation Documents

The CTO noted discrepancies in the transportation documents, including missing vehicle numbers, incorrect routes, and lack of confirmation details. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty, citing evidence of non-compliance with document requirements and suspicion of tax evasion.

Issue 3: Adjudication by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT)

The KAT affirmed the penalty, highlighting the lack of evidence proving the actual movement of goods and discrepancies in the documents tendered during interception. The KAT found common practices in the Arecanut trade aimed at evading taxes and recycling documents.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing that no question of law arose as the authorities had found non-compliance with statutory provisions. The Assessee failed to carry required documents during transportation, leading to the imposition of the penalty. The judgment underscores the importance of adherence to legal requirements in commercial transport to prevent tax evasion.