2014 (7) TMI 1007 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty u/s 47 - Interception of vehicle - Held that - The case was adjourned for the Government Pleader to obtain instructions. Accordingly, she has obtained instructions and it is submitted that the Department has decided to file revision against exhibit P1 order before this court and that it was therefore that exhibit P2 request of the petitioner was not considered - As already stated, exhibit P1 order was rendered by the Tribunal on November 30, 2012 and the petitioner obtained a copy of the order in the first week of January, 2013. It is thereafter that the petitioner sought release of the vehicle. Evidently therefore if the Department has taken efforts, they too would have got the copy of the order from the Tribunal so that revision can be filed without any further delay - reasonable time is granted to the Department to pursue the revisional remedy and in case they do not do so, it shall be the obligation of the Department to give effect to the Tribunal order and to release the excavator to the petitioner. Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 47 of the KVAT Act, 2003 on a Government contractor for transporting a hydraulic excavator.
2. Appeal process leading to the setting aside of the penalty order and granting liberty for further investigation.
3. Delay in releasing the excavator despite the appellate authority's order.
4. Decision of the Department to file a revision against the appellate order.
5. Court's directive regarding the release of the excavator if the Department fails to file a revision within a specified period.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Government contractor, faced penalty proceedings under section 47 of the KVAT Act, 2003, when the excavator he purchased was intercepted during transportation. The initial penalty of &8377; 13,13,830 was imposed, leading to the petitioner's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected. Subsequently, an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal resulted in exhibit P1 order setting aside the penalty and allowing further investigation into the dealer of the excavator.

2. The Tribunal's exhibit P1 order, dated November 3, 2012, was received by the petitioner in early January 2013. Following this, the petitioner promptly submitted a request, exhibit P2, for the release of the excavator. However, despite the request being received by the respondents, the excavator was not released, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking appropriate directions for release.

3. During the court proceedings, the Government Pleader informed that the Department intended to file a revision against the Tribunal's order, which led to the delay in releasing the excavator. The court acknowledged the Department's intention to pursue a revision but emphasized the need for timely action, directing that if the Department fails to file a revision within 15 days, the excavator must be released to the petitioner in compliance with the Tribunal's order.

4. The court's decision to grant a reasonable time for the Department to pursue the revisional remedy highlights the importance of timely compliance with legal procedures. The directive to release the excavator in the absence of a revision filing underscores the court's commitment to ensuring justice and adherence to appellate orders, balancing the rights of the petitioner with the Department's procedural rights.

5. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of penalty imposition, appellate process, delay in compliance, and revision filing, emphasizing the need for procedural adherence and timely action to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of the parties involved. The court's directive provides clarity on the course of action to be taken by the Department, ensuring effective implementation of the Tribunal's order and the resolution of the dispute regarding the excavator's release.