9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icles of Bharat Stage III. Held that:- Neither in the counter affidavit nor in course of submission before this court the respondent authorities or on their behalf it could be prima facie demonstrated that the petitioner had cancelled the esuvidha declaration generated on 28.03.2017 with any intention to play fraud upon the taxing authorities. There is no answer to the contention of the petitioner that with effect from 01.04.2017, the vehicle loaded on the truck in question were reduced to scraps and were not marketable, if this is the position and not denied by the respondents, this court would be constraint to hold and declare that cancellation of the e-suvidha declaration by the petitioner was only a bona fide act without there bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as dealer at Muzaffarpur. For the purpose of transportation of Auto three wheelers, diesel generator set and lubricants generated e-suvidha declaration in from D-IX. from Rajkot to Muzaffarpur. The e-suvidha declaration mentioned the details of the consignee, consigner, the identification number of the consigner and consignee place of dispatch and destination of consignment, invoice number, quantity and value of goods. A copy of e-suvidha declaration dated 28.03.2017 has been placed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. It is the case of the petitioner that a copy of e-suvidha declaration was made available to the transporter together with a copy of retail invoice in support thereof to facilitate the transportation of goods and for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere of Bharat Stage III (BS III), copy of the certificate dated 05.04.2017 has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application. The response submitted by the petitioner was not acceptable to the respondent no. 4 who held that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Bihar Vat Act. 2005 and because the petitioner had failed to furnish e-suvidha declaration in support of goods being transported, the petitioner had failed to file correct and complete declaration and was thus, liable to penalty three fold of the amount of tax payable. Respondent no. 4 imposed a penalty of ₹ 9,33,470/- vide order dated 07.04.2017 as contained in Annexure 7 series. The petitioner, it is stated that in order to secure relea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the Hon ble Apex Court. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was, however, dismissed by the order dated 05.06.2017 as contained in Annexure-11. Mr. Kejriwal learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was no reason for the respondent authorities to doubt the bonafide of the petitioner. The sequence of facts leading to cancellation of e-suvidha declaration in respect of goods being transported have been placed before us to demonstrate that with effect from 01.04.2017, the vehicle with Bharat Stage III could not have been sold in the market and therefore on 04.04.2017, when the transport vehicle was intercepted by the Revenue Authorities, the goods loaded on the ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place of cancelled suvidha. The truck in question reached at the check post after four days on 04.04.2017 and because the goods were being transported without correct and complete declaration, it was found that the goods were being transported in violation of provision of section 16(4)(a) read with Section 56(4)(a) of the Bihar Vat Act 2005. Thus, the goods were seized by the authorities concerned. It is submitted that in the case of Supreme Road Transport Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, this court has held that in case were the driver or person in-charge of goods fails to make true and complete disclosure, such failure give rise to presumption of intention to evade tax. The respondents have supported the impugned orders saying that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot marketable, if this is the position and not denied by the respondents, this court would be constraint to hold and declare that cancellation of the e-suvidha declaration by the petitioner was only a bona fide act without there being any intention to play fraud with the taxing authorities. On 04.04.2017, when the Truck was intercepted those loaded vehicles were not marketable and further, Annexure-9 and 10 to the writ application clearly demonstrate that those vehicles were returned to the consigner for which the petitioner has generated e-suvidha declaration to return the goods to the consigner. The e-suvidha declaration (Annexure-9) contains similar description of the vehicles which have been mentioned in the e-suvidha declaration earlie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
