9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1086 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImposition of penalty under section 76(2)(b)of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 - Rule 53 of the VAT Rules - Form VAT-47produced, not duly filled, some columns left blank - suspection of the Assessing Officer that the form can be re-used - sunflower oil in transit from Punjab to Jaipur - other invoices and builties produced - is imposition of penalty is correct in the view that all documents were produced and only a few columns in the form VAT-47 remained unfilled? - Held that - the decision in the case Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Versus. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd 2015 (11) TMI 1078 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT is relied upon. Also the provisions of section Section 76 of the VAT Act and Rule 53 of the VAT Rules was carried in detail. Rule 53 of the VAT Rules mandates that a declaration form is required to be carried with goods in movement for import within the State and the registered dealer shall furnish or cause to be furnished a declaration in Form VAT-47 completely filled in all respect in ink and ensure that the value, date and month of use of such Form shall be punched at the specified place provided for in the Form. The AO found that in Part A, the columns relating to name, place, date were blank and in Part B, the columns relating to name, place and date were blank and in Part C, the columns relating to place, status and signatures were not found to be filled in and neither the date, month nor value column was punched and there was no punching at all. The word shall having been used is mandatory. The material columns remained unfilled and equally important fact that VAT-47 was not at all punched is sufficient to hold that the AO was well justified in coming to the conclusion of imposition of penalty u/Sec. 76(2)(b) and the DC(A) as well as the Tax Board having upheld the finding of the AO, is just and proper. Petition devoid of merits - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the penalty imposed under Section 76(6) of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003. 2. Compliance with Rule 53 of the VAT Rules regarding the filling and punching of Form VAT-47. 3. Interpretation of "material particulars" in Form VAT-47. 4. Applicability of mens rea for imposition of penalty under Section 76(6) of the VAT Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Penalty Imposed under Section 76(6) of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003: The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed by the Anti Evasion Officer under Section 76(6) of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003, for not filling in certain columns of Form VAT-47 and not punching the form. The officer issued a show cause notice under Section 76(2)(b) read with Rule 53, leading to the imposition of a penalty. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Rajasthan Tax Board upheld this penalty. The court, referencing the Apex Court's judgment in Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer (2007) 7 SCC 269, confirmed that the penalty was justified as the form was incomplete and could be reused, indicating a potential for tax evasion. 2. Compliance with Rule 53 of the VAT Rules Regarding the Filling and Punching of Form VAT-47: Rule 53 mandates that Form VAT-47 must be completely filled in and punched with the date, month, and value. The court observed that several columns in Parts A, B, and C of Form VAT-47 were left blank, and the form was not punched. The court emphasized that the use of the word "shall" in Rule 53 makes it mandatory to comply with these requirements. The court found that the Anti Evasion Officer's findings were correct and upheld the penalty for non-compliance. 3. Interpretation of "Material Particulars" in Form VAT-47: The petitioner argued that the unfilled columns were not material particulars and should not warrant a penalty. However, the court, referencing the Apex Court's judgment in Guljag Industries, held that leaving columns blank in Form VAT-47, such as name, place, date, status, and signatures, constitutes a contravention of statutory obligations. The court emphasized that such omissions could facilitate the reuse of the form, thereby aiding tax evasion. The court concluded that the unfilled columns were indeed material particulars, and the penalty was justified. 4. Applicability of Mens Rea for Imposition of Penalty under Section 76(6) of the VAT Act: The petitioner contended that mens rea (intention to evade tax) was not proven, and thus the penalty should not be imposed. The court, citing the Apex Court's judgment in Guljag Industries and the Larger Bench judgment in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2015) 82 VST 200 (Raj.), clarified that mens rea is not an essential element for imposing a penalty under Section 76(6). The court reiterated that the penalty under Section 76(6) is a civil liability for non-compliance with statutory obligations, and the intention to evade tax is irrelevant. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the penalty imposed under Section 76(6) of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003. It confirmed that the requirements of Rule 53 regarding the filling and punching of Form VAT-47 are mandatory and that the unfilled columns in the form were material particulars. The court also clarified that mens rea is not required for imposing a penalty under Section 76(6). The interim order dated 27/09/2012 was vacated, and the judgment was to be sent to the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer.
|
