Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 957 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxIssues involved: Revision against penalty order u/s 43 of Value Added Tax Act. The judgment pertains to a revisionist, M/s Kalka Ji Enterprises, challenging a penalty order imposed under section 43 of the Value Added Tax Act. The revisionist's appeal against the penalty was dismissed by the Commercial Appellate Tribunal, leading to the penalty of Rs. 96,080 being upheld. The case originated from the inspection of a truck loaded with scrap by Department Officials, where discrepancies were found regarding business activities and transactions. The penalty was imposed on the revisionist for allegedly trading goods with the intention to evade tax. The first issue addressed in the judgment was the legality of imposing the penalty under section 43 of the Act. The revisionist argued that the penalty was unjust as the inspection was conducted by an Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner, and the search conducted should not be the basis for imposing the penalty. The court referred to section 43(5) of the Act, which allows the imposition of a penalty not exceeding forty percent of the value of goods if they were wilfully omitted from being shown in the accounts. The second issue involved the inspection of business premises by the Mobile Unit. The Tribunal referred to section 42(3) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, which prohibits entering, inspecting, or searching business premises without authorization from the Commissioner or a designated officer. The Tribunal found that the Mobile Unit's actions were within the legal boundaries as they were only inquiring about tax matters and not conducting a full inspection of business activities. The third issue addressed was the revisionist's claim of a family dispute leading to the absence of account books at the business premises. However, the court noted that no evidence was presented to substantiate this claim. Lastly, the revisionist sought to set aside the penalty order citing a previous assessment order, but the court held that the penalty proceedings were initiated due to the lack of account books regarding goods obtained from an unregistered dealer. In conclusion, the court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order upholding the penalty. The revisionist's payment of the penalty under protest further weakened the argument for a reduction in the penalty amount. Therefore, the revision was dismissed, and the penalty of 40% was upheld.
|