9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t centres, 2 in Kerala and the rest outside Kerala. The consignments addressed to the agency in Kerala and other states were not declared as mandated under the section 46(3)(e) of the Act read with Rule 66(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. Moreover, the delivery notes were tampered with overwriting and the complete address of the consignee was not furnished. The goods were detained and later released on remittance of 25% of the security amount demanded. 3. Annex.L notice under section 47(2) of the Act was issued pointing out the reason for detention on 29.11.2013. The petitioner, to Annexure-L notice, filed detailed objection marked as Annex.M. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted by the intelligence officer and a penalty Rs.30,49,585/- was imposed under section 47(6) of the Act. 4. The petitioner, against the order of the Intelligence Officer dated 9.6.2014, filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 23.4.2015 in KVATA- 2046/2014, allowed the appeal and the penalty was reduced to Rs.50,000/- and the balance was directed to be refunded to the petitioner. 5. The Revenue, thereafter, filed appeal before the Tribunal, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly transported firstly to a single place and from there to the different parts of the State. Thus, the goods were brought to Kerala to be sent to Chennai, Maharashtra and to Thrissur. Since the goods are accompanied by all the documents necessary, the question of evasion of tax does not arise. Moreover, there is no sale of the gold ornaments and it is only a stock transfer from one branch to another for repair and making of new gold ornaments. The goods are brought to Kerala to be transported back to the respective branches and hence, all the documents which are necessary for movement of goods were produced at the time of interception and there is no violation of section 47(2) of the Act. The counsel further contends that the main reason for the detention is that the consignment was not declared as per section 46(3)(e) of the Act. The declaration is as per Form 8FA which can only be filed electronically by a registered dealer and since the consignee is not the registered dealer, the petitioner cannot account these transactions and file form 8FA. Thus, there is no violation of Rule 46 of KVAT Rules and no attempt to evade payment of tax under the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed into the State through coastal cargo, through air and through the Railways, the importer or clearing agents, by whatever name called, shall, on arrival of such goods, furnish a declaration before the Commercial Tax Officer having jurisdiction over the place of import, as may be prescribed. While transporting such goods within the State or across the State, the transporter/person in charge of the vehicle/vessel shall keep a copy of such declaration duly acknowledged by the concerned authority and shall be produced for verification by any authority under this Act.]" 10. The sub section (e) to Section 46(3) of the Act mandates that goods when are imported to the state, through coastal cargo, through air and through the Railways, a declaration has to be furnished before the Tax Commercial Officer having jurisdiction over the place of import. This measure has been incorporated in the Act to ensure that the department has knowledge of the import of the goods into the State, so that evasion of tax is averted. The petitioner does not have a case that it has declared the goods before the Commercial Tax department and filed form 8FA as provided in section 46(3)(e) of the Act. Rule 66(6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of goods were not available at the time of transport and hence, the contention of the petitioner that proper documents were accompanied by the goods is factually incorrect. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the intelligence officer has noted in his order that the no books of accounts were produced before him and also of the fact that no declaration in form 8FA was produced along with the reply though the petitioner had a contention that in respect of goods brought to Kerala form 8FA was uploaded not at the time of interception but later. The Intelligence Officer also verified the declaration in KVAT Act and confirmed that the same was not declared. As per section 46(3)(e) of the Act, declaration should have been done on the arrival of goods into the state on 29.11.2013 itself. 13. Section 46(3)(e) of the Act is incorporated to put a check on import of goods to the state without disclosing in the books of accounts and later to be used in the manufacture or sale within the state. Though the respondent claims that the consignment which came to Kerala has been sent back to the original consignor at Gurgaon and Karol Bagh after the repair, melting and purification, the onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
