9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities, merely on account of delayed movement of goods, in the face of the explanation put forth by the assessee, and in the absence of any material on record, in our considered opinion, cannot draw the only irresistible inference that there was an attempt to evade payment of tax. The assessing authority has based its finding of attempt to evade tax simply on the basis of its presumption and suspicion. Therefore, the delayed movement of goods by itself is not sufficient to conclude that there was an attempt to evade payment of tax or the bills/sale invoices were ante-dated. Hence, the findings recorded by the Tribunal/authorities under the VAT Act are based on no evidence and are liable to be set aside. Decided in favour of assessee. - 12-19 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2009 - KUMAR M.M. AND JASWANT SINGH , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH J. This order shall dispose of seven VAT Appeals bearing Nos. V.A.T.A.P. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of 2009, involving common question of law and similar facts, filed by the appellant-assessee under section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short the VAT Act ) against the common order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 orders dated April 13, 2007 and August 9, 2007 were dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned common order dated October 3, 2008 (annexure A8). The appellant-assessee has filed the present appeals proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Designated Officer at ICC can impose any penalty under section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Vat Act, 2005, for an offence committed (if any) under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? (ii) Whether, after the goods are voluntarily reported at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t-State has argued that the Tribunal being the final authority regarding determination of questions of facts and the Tribunal having determined that there was an attempt to evade tax by ante dating the bills /sale invoices, there was no occasion for this court to interfere under section 68(2) of the VAT Act. The learned counsel in support of the findings argued that the fact of issue of 136 bills on March 26, 2007, i.e., the last date before the expiry of exemption certificate coupled with late movement of goods raises an unimpeachable presumption that there was an attempt to evade tax. The learned counsel by referring to section 9 of the CST Act further argued that the power and authority to administer and realise Central sales tax has been vested in the State authorities and therefore, in view of the attempt to evade Central sales tax by 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-asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 that there was an attempt to evade payment of tax on the ground that there was movement of goods after a delay of four days. It is also apparent that the detaining officer had submitted the proceedings along with the concerned record to the designated officer/AETC for conducting necessary enquiry and passing of an appropriate order under clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 51 of the VAT Act. The appellant-assessee to the notice issued took the stand that the goods had been sold on March 26, 2007 in pursuance of purchase orders and accordingly sale invoices had been issued, goods earmarked for clearance and goods receipt issued in the name of two local truck unions on the same day for onward transmission of goods. Since the assesseecompany enjoyed the exemption on the date of the sale, therefore, no tax was payable and hence there was no question of any attempt to evade tax. The assessee-company also produced an insp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
