2019 (1) TMI 765 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of tax and penalty - inter-state transfer - non-production of the endorsed transit passes - section 76(6) of Assam Value Added tax Act, 2003 - invocation of revisional jurisdiction - Held that - The presumption in the event of non-submission of the requisite transit passes with the endorsement of the exit check post can very well be rebutted by simply producing the said transit passes which the petitioner has failed. Moreover, the transit passes were issued in the year 2011 and 2012 and the appeal before the honourable Assam Board of Revenue were filed in the year 2015 but on perusal of the application seeking leave to bring on record the new and additional facts by way of relying the requisite documents it is seen that even on the date of filing the said appeals, the present petitioner was not in a position to produce those documents not to speak of at the time of filing of revision before respondent No. 3. In the said application for leave there is no explanation in order to show as to why there was so much delay. There is no failure on the part of the honourable Board in exercising the jurisdiction while passing the impugned order in the appeal - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of tax, interest, and penalty on transportation of goods through the State of Assam.
2. Dispute regarding the submission of endorsed transit passes for consignments delivered in Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh.
3. Revision petitions before the Joint Commissioner of Taxes and subsequent appeals to the Assam Board of Revenue.
4. Challenge to the Board's decision and request for revision under section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner was involved in transporting goods through Assam for delivery in Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh. The transit passes issued at the entry check-post needed endorsement at the exit check-post to confirm the consignments crossed Assam without being sold within the state. Due to non-production of endorsed passes, assessments were made imposing tax, interest, and penalties. Revision petitions were filed, resulting in partial relief for Meghalaya consignments but dismissal for Arunachal Pradesh consignments.

2. The Joint Commissioner found the evidence for Meghalaya consignments satisfactory but raised concerns over the certificates provided for Arunachal Pradesh consignments. The Board of Revenue, in its common order, emphasized the mandatory requirement of producing transit passes at the exit check-post. The Board dismissed the appeals, stating the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that goods were sold within Assam, especially as the necessary evidence was lacking, such as registration numbers and specific details on the consignments.

3. The petitioner contended that new facts and documents showed the consignments entered Arunachal Pradesh, challenging the Board's decision. However, the court noted the delay in producing these documents and found them insufficient and lacking credibility. The court highlighted the importance of presenting persuasive evidence to counter the presumption of goods being sold within Assam, which the petitioner failed to do.

4. The court, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, upheld the Board's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of revision when concurrent findings exist. The failure to submit endorsed transit passes and the lack of credible evidence to support the claim of goods reaching Arunachal Pradesh led to the dismissal of the revision petition. The court found no fault in the Board's decision-making process and concluded that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to challenge the presumption of goods being sold within Assam.