9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the check-post or barrier may, after giving the owner, driver or person-in-charge of goods, a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding such further inquiry, as he deems fit, impose on him penalty, in addition to tax payable under the Act, not exceeding one and one-half times of the tax for possession of goods so seized. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the value of the goods in question is ₹ 3,60,000/- . If the goods are sought to be sent outside the State of Gujarat, the tax payable would be at 2%, which would come to ₹ 7,200/-. However, even if the goods are meant for sale within the State of Gujarat, the highest amount of tax that could be leviable would be at the rate of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the VAT Act ), has directed seizure of the goods of the petitioner and assessed tax at ₹ 1,65,240/- and imposed penalty at 150% thereof at ₹ 2,47,860/-, and directed the petitioner to pay in all ₹ 4,13,100/-. Moreover, the petitioner has also been directed to pay ₹ 12,880/- towards input tax. 4. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of trading in ceramic tools, ceramic tiles, sanitary wares, etc. and is registered under the VAT Act. Pursuant to a purchase order dated 04.08.2014 from Arvind Ceramic Private Limited, Chennai, for supply of 3000 boxes of ceramic tiles at the rate of ₹ 120/- per box, on 11.08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.2014 came to be addressed by the petitioner to the respondents to release the truck and the goods on the ground that the respondents have no right or authority to detain the truck and the goods of the petitioner under the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the VAT Act. By the impugned order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the fifth respondent under section 68(5) of the VAT Act, the petitioner was directed to deposit ₹ 4,13,000/-, including the tax amounting to ₹ 1,65,240/- levied at the rate of 15% after considering the value of goods at three times the actual value and penalty at 150% amounting to ₹ 2,47,860/-. The petitioner was also ordered to deposit ₹ 12,880/- towards input tax credit. It is in the backdrop of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the fifth respondent. It was submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is required to be seen, inasmuch as, the truck in question was detained at Sagbara and not at Songadh check post; as soon as the truck was stopped, the driver of the truck had fled from the scene and had returned after an hour and submitted a Manual Form No.402. It was further submitted that against the impugned order, the petitioner has an alternative remedy available by way of an appeal under section 73(1) of the VAT Act and as such, there is no warrant for intervention by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question would be to the tune of ₹ 54,000/-, whereas in the facts of the present case, the fifth respondent has assessed the tax at ₹ 1,65,240/-. Moreover, the penalty, at best, could be one and one-half times the amount of tax, whereas having regard to the fact that the tax itself has been assessed at more than three times the normal rate, the penalty at 150% of that amount, is also equally exorbitant. 9. Furthermore, from the facts which have come on record, it is apparent that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing by the respondents. Clause (a) of subsection (5) of section 68 of the VAT Act clearly contemplates affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the owner, driver or person-in-charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
