Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1605 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPenalty - the impugned order would contend that in terms of the invoice placed on record before the check-post officer, goods were moving from Pune to Bangalore. The details of the consignee, Greenline, Bangalore was not forthcoming in the invoice - Held that - Tax invoice or bill of sale is a necessary document to be carried, where the goods are carried as a result of sale. Tax invoice as defined under Section 2(32) of the KVAT Act, is a document specified under Section 29, with the description of listing goods s old with price, quantity and other information as prescribed. Invoice should mandatorily contain the particulars as prescribed in Rule 29, which is lacking herein. Admittedly, tax invoice carried by the person in- charge of the goods vehicle in question as found at the time of interception was not in conformity with the provisions prescribed. The goods were moving from Pune to Bangalore without the required documents as contemplated under Section 53(2)(b) of the KVAT Act - Hence, the check post officer was justified in levying penalty. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no reasons are assigned by the revisional authority while confirming the order of the check post officer setting aside the appellate order is wholly obnoxious and untenable. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Challenging legality and correctness of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes regarding penalty imposition for noncompliance with tax provisions during interstate sale. Analysis: The appellant, a proprietorship concern registered under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, was transporting wood from Pune to Bangalore when intercepted by Commercial Tax Officer. The officer observed incomplete consignee details in the invoice, leading to the issuance of a penalty. The appellant appealed against the penalty, which was initially reduced but later reinstated by the revisional authority under Section 66(1) of the KVAT Act, prompting the current appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that the revisional authority failed to provide reasons for overturning the appellate order, emphasizing that no tax evasion occurred, and the penalty was unjustified. It was contended that the transaction was interstate, giving the revisional authority no jurisdiction to intervene. The appellant's actions of selling the goods locally after the initial consignee rejection were defended as prudent business practice. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the penalty was correctly imposed due to incomplete consignee details in the invoice, justifying the revisional authority's intervention under Section 64 of the KVAT Act to protect revenue interests. The court examined relevant sections of the KVAT Act, emphasizing the mandatory requirements for carrying proper documents during transport. It was noted that the tax invoice lacked prescribed particulars, justifying the penalty imposition. The appellate authority's decision to set aside the penalty was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests, leading to the revisional authority's intervention. The court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the subsequent local sale as not falling under CST Act provisions, as no supporting documents were presented during interception. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the revisional authority provided sufficient reasons for its decision, and no legal grounds existed to overturn the order. It was concluded that no legal questions warranted further consideration, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
|