2014 (7) TMI 37 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty under Section 51 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Evasion of tax duty - Duplicate invoices - Detention of goods - Held that - Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that there was an attempt to evade tax and that there were two invoices of same number and date, i.e. Sr. No. 15105 dated 24.7.2012. Out of the aforesaid two invoices of the same serial numbers, one was issued by Surendra Steel Sales, Zirakpur (Punjab) and the other one was issued by Surendra Steel Sales, Chandigarh and this parallel invoices had been prepared on the printed form. It was not disputed by the owner of the goods that bill No. 15105 dated 24.7.2012 was issued by Surendra Steel Sales, Zirakpur after the detention of the goods. The explanation furnished by the appellant-dealer was held to be not plausible. The finding of fact could not be shown to be perverse and the view taken by the authorities below was a possible view which cannot be faulted. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal - Decided against assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Delay in refiling the appeal.
2. Appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against penalty orders.
3. Imposition of penalty under Sections 51(7)(b) and 51(12) of the Act.
4. Validity of penalty imposition due to clerical mistake.
5. Attempt to evade tax by issuing invoices from different branches.
6. Adjudication of penalty imposition by authorities.

Analysis:

1. Delay in refiling the appeal: The High Court condoned a delay of 5 days in refiling the appeal by the assessee. This issue was addressed at the outset of the judgment.

2. Appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against penalty orders: The appellant filed an appeal under Section 68 of the Act against penalty orders imposed by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the imposition of penalties under Section 51.

3. Imposition of penalty under Sections 51(7)(b) and 51(12) of the Act: The authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,70,900 under Sections 51(7)(b) and 51(12) of the Act. The penalty was based on the discrepancy between the location of loading and the branch from which the invoice was issued, leading to a presumption of an attempt to evade tax.

4. Validity of penalty imposition due to clerical mistake: The appellant contended that the penalty imposition was due to an inadvertent clerical mistake. However, the authorities found this explanation implausible, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

5. Attempt to evade tax by issuing invoices from different branches: The case revolved around the issuance of invoices from different branches of the same entity, leading to suspicions of tax evasion. The authorities found that such actions constituted an attempt to evade tax under the Act.

6. Adjudication of penalty imposition by authorities: The Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition based on the discrepancy in invoices and the perceived attempt to evade tax. The High Court found no merit in the appeal, as the authorities' conclusions were deemed reasonable and not perverse.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty imposition under the Act due to the discrepancies in invoices and the perceived attempt to evade tax. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with tax regulations and the consequences of actions that may raise suspicions of tax evasion.

← Previous Next →