9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1270 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWho is required to declare the goods (consignment in the Railway train) - PVAT - Whether the use of the term person in the first proviso to Section 51(2) as distinct from the owner or person in charge of a goods vehicle in Section 51(2) foists the obligation in terms of the proviso to furnish or cause to be furnished a declaration in the form prescribed, on any person selling goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce even when such goods are not being transported in a goods vehicle ? Held that - Section 51(2) of the Act obliges each and every owner or person in charge of a goods vehicle to carry with him the documents prescribed therein in respect of goods meant for the purpose of business and being carried in the goods vehicle - But in respect of goods being sold from within or outside the State in the course of inter-state trade or commerce the first proviso imports an additional condition of furnishing a declaration with such particulars as may be prescribed. Thus the purpose of the proviso appears to be to require furnishing of an additional declaration in respect of goods being sold from within or outside the State in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. In terms of the provisions at the relevant time, the use of the term person in the first proviso to Section 51(2) of the Act as distinct from the owner or person in charge of a goods vehicle in Section 51(2) of the Act does not foist obligation of furnishing a declaration in terms of the first proviso, on any person when goods are not being transported in a goods vehicle. It is opined that as per the scheme of the Section 51 (at the relevant time), the declaration in terms of the first proviso to Section 51(2) is required to be furnished only by the owner or person in charge of a goods vehicle in respect of goods as are being carried in the goods vehicle for the purpose as mentioned in the first proviso. The proceedings initiated against the appellant are held to be without jurisdiction. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Reporting requirements for goods brought into Punjab by railway under Section 51(6)(b) of the Punjab VAT Act 2005. 2. Interpretation of "goods vehicle" in the context of Section 51(2) of the Punjab VAT Act 2005. 3. Legality of imposing a penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab VAT Act 2005. 4. Classification of an unregistered dealer as a casual trader under Section 31(5) of the Punjab VAT Act 2005 and related penalty implications. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reporting Requirements for Goods Brought into Punjab by Railway: The appellant argued that the provisions of Sections 51(2) and 51(4) of the Punjab VAT Act 2005, which mandate reporting at an Information Collection Centre (ICC), apply only to goods transported in a "goods vehicle" and not to goods transported by railway. The Tribunal disagreed, holding that the term "person" in the first proviso to Section 51(2) implies that any person selling goods in interstate trade must furnish a declaration, regardless of the mode of transport. However, the High Court concluded that the reference to "goods vehicle" in Section 51(2) excludes vehicles running on fixed rails, such as trains, from this requirement. 2. Interpretation of "Goods Vehicle": The appellant contended that a railway train is not a "goods vehicle" as defined in Section 2(l) of the Act, which specifically excludes vehicles running on fixed rails. The Tribunal rejected this argument, but the High Court agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the specific exclusion of "vehicle running upon fixed rails" from the definition of "goods vehicle" means that the provisions of Section 51(2) do not apply to goods transported by train. 3. Legality of Imposing a Penalty: The appellant was penalized under Sections 51(7)(c) read with Section 51(12) of the Act for not reporting the goods at an ICC. The High Court found that since the goods were transported by train, the provisions of Section 51(2) and the associated penalties under Section 51(7)(c) were not applicable. Therefore, the imposition of the penalty was without jurisdiction. 4. Classification of an Unregistered Dealer as a Casual Trader: The appellant argued that they should be considered a casual trader under Section 31(5) of the Act and thus subject to different penalty provisions under Sections 52 and 53. The Tribunal rejected this argument, but the High Court did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail, given its conclusion that the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction due to the inapplicability of Section 51(2) to goods transported by train. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, quashing the orders of the Tribunal, AETC (MW) Amritsar, and DETC (A), Jalandhar Division. It held that the proceedings initiated against the appellant were without jurisdiction, as the provisions of Section 51(2) of the Punjab VAT Act 2005 did not apply to goods transported by train.
|
