2017 (1) TMI 639 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty u/s 78 (5) - declaration form ST-18A - production of expired Form ST-18A - Held that - when this court has already taken a view based on the judgment of this court and which has been upheld by the Apex Court then the present petition is also required to be dismissed - penalty withheld - petition dismissed - decided against appellant-petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of penalty imposed under Section 78 (5) for expired declaration form ST-18-A.
2. Interpretation of Rule 23 regarding carrying expired declaration forms.
3. Applicability of previous court judgments and Apex Court decisions on similar issues.

Issue 1: Validity of penalty imposed under Section 78 (5) for expired declaration form ST-18-A:
The case involved a penalty imposed under Section 78 (5) due to the production of an expired declaration form ST-18-A. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board found it to be a technicality without intent to evade tax, thus deleting the penalty. The petitioner argued that the expired declaration form should not be considered, indicating an intention of tax evasion. The court noted the previous judgments and upheld the decisions deleting the penalty, emphasizing that the issue was already settled by previous court decisions and the Apex Court.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 23 regarding carrying expired declaration forms:
The petitioner contended that Rule 23 prohibits carrying expired declaration forms, indicating an intent to evade tax. However, the court considered the arguments and previous judgments, ultimately dismissing the petition as devoid of merits. The court highlighted that the judgment of the Tax Board in a related case had been reversed by the Apex Court, affecting the interpretation of Rule 23 in this context.

Issue 3: Applicability of previous court judgments and Apex Court decisions on similar issues:
The court extensively discussed the relevance of previous court judgments and Apex Court decisions on similar issues. The petitioner relied on Rule 23 and the expired declaration form to argue for the imposition of the penalty. However, the court emphasized the importance of consistency with previous decisions and upheld the deletion of the penalty based on established legal interpretations. The court clarified that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly, citing the precedents set by previous court decisions and the Apex Court's rulings on comparable matters.