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

2009 (2) TMI 777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eering having its office at P-25, C.I.T. Road, Scheme-VII-M, Kolkata 700 054. The petitioner is registered under the West Bengal VAT Act, 2003 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as a works contractor. In course of business the petitioner was sending a consignment of goods to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., at their outlet at Haitgaon in Assam through vehicle No. WB-23A-9960. The said loaded truck was intercepted at Ghosh Pukur Check point on April 27, 2008 by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Siliguri Range (in short, the ASTO, SRG), respondent No. 1. On April 29, 2008 the consignment was seized for alleged contravention of section 81 of the West Bengal VAT Act, 2003. A penalty of Rs. 1,43,000 was also imposed on April 30, 2008 under se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed at page 25. The learned advocate has admitted that the original purchase order dated March 27, 2008 was not handed over to the driver as the concerned authority of BPCL who was to issue the certificate was on leave, but the BPCL was in urgent need of completion of the job and therefore insisted on completing the job as early as possible, that is why the original purchase order could not be produced at the time of detention, seizure as well as at the time of imposition of penalty, but a certificate issued by the BPCL was produced at the time of seizure as well as at the time of hearing of penalty proceedings but the concerned authority did not accept the certificate as relevant to the disputed transaction. The learned advocate has claimed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hile the purchase order No. 4502168557 annexed at page 25 reveals the date of purchase order is March 27, 2008. The learned State Representative has claimed that the contradictory statement was made by the petitioner to evade payment of tax. Even, it is argued by the learned State Representative, if it is a case of stock transfer no forwarding note/stock transfer note was issued by the petitioner as per provisions of section 81(l)(b) of the Act. The points of adjudication in this case are: (i) whether the disputed transaction is inter-State sale or stock transfer, and (ii) whether the required provisions under section 81 of the Act were complied or not. We have perused the purchase order No. 4502168557 dated March 27, 2008 of BP .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in the execution of works contract will be transferred to the purchaser after commissioning of the entire works contract. As such, the disputed transaction in the instant case is the deemed inter-State sale and as such, in the challan No. HE-266 dated April 24, 2008 and the consignment note No. 155 dated April 24, 2008, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., New Retail outlet, Hatigaon, Gauhati, Assam was shown as consignee. Accordingly, the disputed transaction is covered under section 81(1)(a) of the West Bengal VAT Act, 2003. The consignee rightly issued way-bill received from the Government of Assam for importation of goods from West Bengal. Section 81(1)(a) of the West Bengal VAT Act, 2003 states that: 81. Measures to p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eing sent to Assam which was nothing but deemed inter-State sale in course of execution of works contract and the petitioner is liable to pay tax in West Bengal. Even at this stage of hearing of this revision application nothing has been produced before us to show that due tax was paid after completion of the works. As such, we agree with respondent No. 2 that the petitioner not only tried to evade payment of tax but also has actually evaded payment of tax. Hence, We do not find anything wrong in imposition of penalty under section 77 of the Act and, therefore, the orders stand confirmed. Since the petitioner did not argue on the quantum of penalty, we restrain ourselves from adjudicating on this point. The application thus fails to succ .....

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