2016 (12) TMI 4 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty u/Sec. 78(5) - Declaration form ST-18-A - Held that - the order of both the appellate authority is required to be interfered with and quashed and set aside & taking into consideration the fact that the driver may have produced bills, vouchers & builty etc. but declaration Form ST-18- A which was mandatory under Rule 53 ought to have been carried duly filled in and admittedly such declaration Form ST-18-A was neither produced at the time of interception of the vehicle nor later on and in the light of judgment of the Apex court in the case of Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer 2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court which has considered the self same controversy at length, the penalty is inevitable. Mens rea is not essential for imposition of penalty. Penalty upheld - decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Sec. 78(5) for not producing declaration form ST-18-A during transportation of goods.
2. Interpretation of mandatory requirement of declaration form ST-18-A under Rule 53.
3. Applicability of penalty on the owner for evasion of tax during goods transportation.
4. Consideration of mens rea in imposing penalty.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of penalty imposition under Sec. 78(5) for failure to produce declaration form ST-18-A during the transportation of goods. The AO imposed the penalty based on the absence of the form, despite the driver producing other documents. The Court noted the mandatory nature of Rule 53, emphasizing that the declaration form should have been carried and produced. The Court upheld the penalty based on the non-compliance with the rule and relevant judgments.

2. The Court analyzed the interpretation of the mandatory requirement of declaration form ST-18-A under Rule 53. It emphasized that the form should have been carried and produced during the transportation of goods. The Court referred to the judgment in Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, highlighting the significance of the form and its mandatory nature under the rule.

3. Regarding the applicability of the penalty on the owner for tax evasion during goods transportation, the Court considered arguments citing relevant judgments. The counsel for the Revenue contended that penalties could be imposed on the owner as well, referencing specific cases. The Court referred to the reversal of the Tax Board's decision by the Apex Court in similar cases, emphasizing the liability of the owner for tax evasion during transportation.

4. The Court discussed the consideration of mens rea in imposing the penalty, noting that intent was not essential based on previous judgments. It referred to cases where penalties were upheld without requiring proof of intent. The Court concluded that the failure to carry the declaration form ST-18-A warranted the penalty, aligning with previous decisions emphasizing strict compliance with tax regulations.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision petition, quashed the orders of the lower authorities, and upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with mandatory requirements, the liability of owners for tax evasion during transportation, and the applicability of penalties without the necessity of proving intent.