9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rh was checked in Modern Industrial Area, Bahadurgarh. The driver was asked to produce the relevant documents. The driver produced only a challan inward S.T. 38 issued by the petitioner-firm but the challan was completely blank and the driver disclosed that no other document was given to him except the said blank challan inward S.T. 38. Accordingly, the goods were detained under section 37(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and a show cause notice under section 37(6) of the Act was issued vide order dated December 12, 2000. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer (Assessing Authority) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,40,000 under section 37(6) of the Act. Aggrieved against the same, the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x due under the Act. 6.. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find considerable force in the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Sales Tax Tribunal in its order dated January 14, 2002, copy annexure P13, had given the following findings: "I have considered the matter carefully and have also seen the facts on record and the judgments relied upon by the parties. It is not disputed that the appellant unit is a 100 per cent export oriented and imports goods from the foreign countries only and no sale and purchase is made by the appellant locally. Such purchases and sales are not leviable to tax under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. It is also a matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations contained in the notice were incorrect and that in fact, no attempt to evade the tax had been made. The Tribunal itself having found that the purchases and sales made by the petitioner were not leviable to tax under the Act, in our opinion, there would be no occasion to say that there was any attempt to evade the tax due under the Act. As referred to above, under section 37(6) of the Act, penalty could be imposed only if after inquiry the 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.......a penalty of not less than fifteen per cent and not more than thirty per cent of the value of the goods and in case he finds otherwise, he shall order the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Act (as found in this case by the Sales Tax Tribunal), it could not be said that the person transporting the goods was attempting to evade the tax due under the Act. This is especially so when as laid down in the Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd.'s case [2001] 123 STC 272 (P H); (2001) 17 PHT 418 the presumption can be rebutted by the person concerned by producing evidence to prove that no attempt had been made to evade payment of tax. Thus, the law laid down by this Court in Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd.'s case [2001] 123 STC 272; (2001) 17 PHT 418 would have no application to the facts of the present case. 8.. No other point has been urged before us. 9.. For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
