Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (7) TMI 605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned "allowed to go HRP 9547 for weighment". No other document was produced by the driver. Driver, however, submitted that documents were being prepared by the selling dealer and he went to collect the same but returned back without any documents. The officer then deputed a Taxation Inspector for ascertaining this position of the documents but he too returned back and told the Excise and Taxation Officer (Enforcement) that no documents have been prepared. In the meantime, the purchaser of the goods one Jagdish Lal also came without any documents. Excise and Taxation Officer after serving notice on the driver of the vehicle imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000 on him under section 37(6) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter refer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ents except the gate pass was produced without making any enquiry or establishing that there was an intention to evade tax under this Act? 4.. Whether penalty under section 37(6) can be imposed while goods are not in transit as a result of sale or purchase and are merely going for weighment? 3.. Before opining on the questions referred, it would be useful to understand the purpose and scheme of section 37 of the Act. Section 37 of the Act provides for establishment of check-posts or barriers and inspection of goods in transit. With a view to prevent or check evasion of tax under the Act. The State Government was authorised to establish a check-post or erection of barrier or both by issuing a notification at any place or places in the St .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reads as under: "37. Establishment of check-post or barriers and inspection of goods in transit.-(1)................ (2) to (5).................... (6) The officer detaining the goods shall record the statement, if any, given by the owner of the goods or his representative or the driver or other person in-charge of the goods carrier and shall require him to produce proper and genuine documents as referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (4), as the case may be. If, after the enquiry, such officer finds that there has been an attempt to evade the tax due under this Act, he shall, by order, impose on the owner of the goods and in case the owner is not forthcoming or his identity is not disclosed by the person in-charge of the go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the person in-charge of the goods or the goods carrier or the driver. 6.. In the light of the above, the questions referred to this Court have to be examined. Question No. 1: In spite of the opportunity given to the driver, he did not produce the relevant documents. The purchaser of goods Jagdish Lal who also came present did not produce any documents. As neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle possessed documents or failed to produce the same, the assumption by the Assessing officer that there was an attempt to evade the tax is well-founded. In view of this, penalty under section 37(6) of the Act, was held to be rightly leviable. In the given facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, held that the assessing officer was ri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iver and it was for the authorities to issue notice to the concerned owner upon whom the penalty could be imposed for an attempt to evade the tax. In this case, owner of the goods was present before the authorities and it was for the authorities to issue a notice to the owner and impose penalty upon him if found guilty of attempt to evade the tax due under the Act. The concerned authorities were negligent in not associating the owner of the goods in the proceedings and providing an opportunity to defend himself. For the reasons stated above, question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative that is against the department and in favour of the assessee-petitioner and it is held that penalty could not be levied on the driver or the person in-cha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates