9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and all books and documents had been produced and the assessing authority, after duly verifying the documents relating to return of goods of the value of ₹ 5,58, 557/- against bill Nos. 1655 and 1656 to 1681 had accepted the position as taken by the appellant and framed assessment vide order dated 05.05.2008. Once the agency stood cancelled and M/s Escorts Ltd., Faridabad had given a credit note for the goods (facts that have gone unchallenged by the revenue), besides assessment having been framed, bill books and the stand of the appellant having been accepted by the assessing authority that the goods of the value of ₹ 5,58,557/- against bill Nos. 1655 and 1656 to 1681, had been returned by the appellant to M/s Escorts Ltd., Faridabad, on cancellation of the agency, there was no question of there being any attempt to evade tax. A perusal of Section 14(B)7 (ii) of the Act reveals that the sine qua non for imposing penalty is a conclusion on the basis of an enquiry by the concerned officer that there has been an attempt to avoid or evade tax under the Act. The bill Nos. 1655, 1656 to 1681 were produced before the AETC, ICC, (Export), Mehmoodpur, alongwith bill books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellation of the agency and the bills had been duly verified with books of accounts by the assessing authority at the time of assessment, then penalty under Section 14-B(7)(ii) of PGST Act on the ground that the goods were not accompanied by proper and genuine documents shall be sustainable. Brief facts of the case are that truck No. PLS-9349 carrying goods while leaving the State of Punjab was intercepted and checked by the ETO at ICC Shambhu on 06.05.2001. The truck driver reported at the ICC while leaving the State of Punjab. On production of documents relating to the goods i.e. tractor parts the detaining officer observed that the documents were not proper and genuine. A representation was made on behalf of the dealer before the detaining officer and bill book from which bill Nos. 1655, 1656 to 1681 had been issued was produced. However the same was found to be not from the current bill books. The same was also found to be not mentioned in the account books. The matter was reported to the authorized officer, who after going through the facts of the case and hearing counsel for the appellant imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,65,000/- u/s 14-B(7)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee for the reasons mentioned hereunder. A perusal of the paper book (order of the VAT Tribunal, Punjab dated 21.08.2008) reveals that the appellant was an agent of M/s Escorts Ltd. Faridabad and that its agency was cancelled vide letter dated 18.07.2000. The goods being carried were not for sale and were being carried for being returned to M/s Escorts Ltd. Faridabad. Information regarding this fact was duly generated at the ICC and even a written statement was filed before the AETC explaining the factual and legal position. Assessment for the year 2001-02 had been completed by the assessing authority and all books and documents had been produced and the assessing authority, after duly verifying the documents relating to return of goods of the value of ₹ 5,58, 557/- against bill Nos. 1655 and 1656 to 1681 had accepted the position as taken by the appellant and framed assessment vide order dated 05.05.2008. A copy of the assessment order dated 05.05.2008 has been produced before us. A relevant extract of the same is reproduced below:- The books produced by the firm have examined at length and during the course of examination of books of accounts it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by observing that bill No. 1661 to 1700 had been issued and that said bill book had been produced but the said bill book did not find mention in the current account books and further that bills prior to the date of transaction in issue in the instant case did not find place in any account books. The AETC, ICC, (Export), Mehmoodpur by referring the provisions of Section 6 (A) of the Central Sales Tax Act held that the burden was cast on the dealer to prove that the goods were transferred by him otherwise than by way of sale, but that the dealer had not produced any document to substantiate that it was a case of stock transfer of goods and that no account books, stock register for verification of accompanying bill was produced and that only document produced was bill book which conclusively proved that bills were not issued from the regular bill books. In the light of the above, the AETC, ICC, (Export), Mehmoodpur, held that the goods were meant for trade and were not covered by proper and genuine documents therefore there was an attempt to evade tax for which penalty of ₹ 1,65,000/- under Section 14-B.7(ii) of the Act was imposed. The question referred to this Court has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
