2023 (4) TMI 1127 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of penalty - Detention of goods - failure on the part of transporter to produce documents - non-reporting about the consignment at the concerned ICC - machinery so transported was not for sale or trade as the same was plant and machinery parts to be installed at the Indian Railway Workshop at Patiala - capital goods or not - non-reporting of goods can be a ground for imposition of penalty though the goods were covered by proper invoice, Goods Receipt and Insurance and no other discrepancy had been pointed out at the time of detention? HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, it is mandatory under the provisions of the PVAT Act that the carrier of the goods while entering or leaving the limits of a Punjab State will generate information about the goods at the nearest ICC which was not proved to be shown by the driver in the instant case. However, in our opinion, from this act of driver only, no interference can be drawn that the declaration was not obtained with a view to avoid payment of tax. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon GANPATI FOODS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 2013 (9) TMI 986 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT wherein non-generation of declaration at ICC was considered to be not sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that an attempt to evade tax was made. Further, merely on the basis of statement alleged to have been made by the driver that he had been told by the appellant to not to generate bills, no penalty could be imposed upon the appellant - Merely non-reporting about the consignment at the concerned ICC and not making declaration in the prescribed form did not lead to the conclusion that there was violation of Section 51 (4) of PVAT Act with a view to make an attempt to avoid the tax. It is not the case of the respondent that the invoice or GR were not genuine. The authorities below and the Tribunal did not examine the genuineness or otherwise of these invoices and goods receipt etc. and the Tribunal had merely gone by the alleged admission of the driver. The impugned orders are not sustainable as the Tribunal was required to examine the entire material on record before concluding that there was any attempt to evade tax on the part of the dealer - impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside and it is held that no case for imposition of penalty has been made out against the appellant - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab VAT Act against orders passed by the Punjab VAT Tribunal.

Facts:
The appellant, a registered dealer under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, supplied machinery to Indian Railways. After receiving a purchase order, the appellant transported machinery to DMW, Patiala. However, during transportation, another consignment was loaded without the appellant's knowledge. Subsequently, penalties were imposed on the appellant for alleged tax evasion, despite producing relevant documents.

Legal Analysis:
The appellant argued that there was no intention to evade tax as the goods were capital goods for a government entity. The failure to report goods at the barrier was attributed to the clerk's error, not an evasion attempt. The appellant cited precedents where penalties were not imposed solely based on driver statements. The State counsel contended that non-reporting of goods indicated an intent to evade tax.

Substantial Questions of Law:
1. Whether there was an attempt to evade tax by the appellant for supplying capital goods to a government entity.
2. Whether non-reporting of goods justifies penalty imposition despite proper documentation.
3. Whether the Tribunal's decision on tax evasion attempts was justified.
4. Whether tax can be levied when documents were produced but not reported at the barrier.

Judgment:
The High Court found that the appellant had valid documentation for the goods supplied, and the failure to report at the barrier did not prove tax evasion. The Court emphasized that penalties should not be imposed solely on driver statements without considering the entire record. Citing relevant case laws, the Court concluded that the penalties imposed were unwarranted. The impugned orders were set aside, and no case for penalty imposition was established against the appellant.

Outcome:
The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's orders were overturned. The Court held that no grounds for penalty imposition were found against the appellant. Any miscellaneous applications were also disposed of accordingly.