9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os. (VAT) 186-192 of 2007-08 filed by the appellant-assessee were dismissed. Facts are being noticed from V.A T A P. No. 12 of 2009. The appellant-assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of iron and steel goods with its manufacturing unit at Beopar (Rajpura) District Patiala and its registered office at G.T. Road, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. The appellant-assessee is registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act,1948 (for short "the PGST Act") and Central Sales Tax Act,1956 (for short "the CST Act") and subsequently under the VAT Act. It has also been granted exemption from payment of tax for a period of seven years with effect from March 27, 2000 to March 26, 2007 for an amount of Rs. 28,50,58,500 vide its exemption certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the invoices were ante dated to evade tax. Matter was reported to the designated officer/ AETC, who issued notices in all the cases and conducted an enquiry. The AETC found that there was an attempt to evade tax and accordingly exercising power under clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 51 of the VAT Act imposed penalty vide order dated April 13, 2007 (annexure A5). The appeal filed before the DETC-cum-Joint Director Investigation, Jalandhar Division, was also dismissed vide order dated August 9, 2007 (annexure A6). Similar penalties were imposed in the connected appeals vide identical order dated April 13, 2007 and the separate appeals filed were also dismissed vide order dated August 9, 2007. All the appeals arising out of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and all the statutory documents required under sub-section (2) of section 51 of the VAT Act were produced there and therefore the designated officer/AETC could not legally exercise jurisdiction under clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 51 and impose penalty for alleged attempt to evade tax which otherwise falls within the exclusive domain of the assessing authority under section 56 of the VAT Act, if any such alleged offence is committed. He further argued that when the sale of goods had taken place and sale invoices had been issued on March 26, 2007 and the goods had been earmarked and delivered to the transporter vide valid goods receipt for their onward transmission to the consignee, then in such a situation merely because the mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee-company, the designated officer/AETC had the jurisdiction under section 51(7)(b) of the VAT Act to impose penalty. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and giving our thoughtful considerations to the rival submissions we are of the considered opinion that these appeals deserve to be allowed in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue. Before embarking upon to decide the issues, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of section 51(7)(b) of the VAT Act, which are reproduced hereunder: "51. (7)(b) The designated officer shall, before conducting the enquiry, serve a notice on the consignor or consignee of the goods detained under clause (a) of sub-section (6) and give him an opportunity of being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant-company even after the sale of goods worth the value stated in 136 sale invoices dated March 26, 2007 had an amount of unavailed/un-utlised exemption limit of tax to its credit. It is also not disputed that truck bearing No. JK03A 1334 had on its own reported at the ICC Center on March 30, 2007 and had submitted all the statutory documents to the officer in-charge of the center as required under sub-section (2) of section 51 of the VAT Act (likewise all the trucks involved in the connected appeals had also reported at the ICC Center and submitted the required documents). The officer in-charge of ICC Center by exercising the powers under sub-section (6)(a) of section 51 of the VAT Act detained the goods since he had reasons to suspect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee-company has after March 26, 2007 sold and dispatched the goods and has paid tax on the same. It is a different matter that number of such transactions is quite small in comparison to the sale transactions entered upon on March 26, 2007. No evidence has been led by the Revenue to show that the consignees or purchase orders or the goods receipts relating to transaction on March 26, 2007 are fictitious. It has also not been shown that there is any statutory requirement laying down that the goods have to be moved and reported within a particular time-frame before any ICC Center after the issue of sale invoice or goods receipt. It is also not disputed that the movement of goods in pursuance of 136 sale invoices dated March 26, 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
