9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AB AND ANOTHER [ 2013 (9) TMI 986 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein non-generation of declaration at ICC was considered to be not sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that an attempt to evade tax was made. Further, merely on the basis of statement alleged to have been made by the driver that he had been told by the appellant to not to generate bills, no penalty could be imposed upon the appellant - Merely non-reporting about the consignment at the concerned ICC and not making declaration in the prescribed form did not lead to the conclusion that there was violation of Section 51 (4) of PVAT Act with a view to make an attempt to avoid the tax. It is not the case of the respondent that the invoice or GR were not genuine. The authorities below and the Tribunal did not examine the genuineness or otherwise of these invoices and goods receipt etc. and the Tribunal had merely gone by the alleged admission of the driver. The impugned orders are not sustainable as the Tribunal was required to examine the entire material on record before concluding that there was any attempt to evade tax on the part of the dealer - impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ian Railway Workshop at Patiala. The machineries/goods were accompanied by proper and genuine documents. It was submitted that without knowledge and consent of the appellant, the driver of the truck bearing No .PB-13R-4069 in which the machinery was carried, loaded another consignment of Taramira which was unloaded at Khanna. The Excise Taxation Officer, Khanna checked the vehicle at the time when Taramira was being unloaded at a godown at Khanna. The driver on demand showed invoice No. 12 dated 13.10.2013 and goods receipts issued by South Goods Carrier and also produced Form No. 57232 prescribed by Madhya Pradesh Government relating to Taramira. The driver also produced invoice No. 264 issued regarding transportation of the machinery by the appellant to DMW along with GR and copy of insurance policy etc. However, by making a false allegation that the driver had not produced any documents regarding transportation of the machinery by the appellant, and further alleging that the driver had not reported the goods of the appellant at the ICC while entering State of Punjab, the machineries were detained and case of appellant was forwarded to Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et aside. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon authorities cited as M /s. Balaji Trading Company, Rewari v. The State of Haryana and another, 2016 SCC OnLine P H 4741; State of Punjab and others v. Shree Ram Panels, (2011) 46 VST 424 (P H); Ganpati Foods v. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 67 VST 348; M/S. Punjab Wool Syndicate v. The State of Punjab and another, 2023 (2) TMI 96 and Krish Pack Industries v. State of Punjab, (2006) 28 PHT 27 (P H). 5. Per Contra, learned State counsel for the respondent argued that the orders passed by the authorities below and the Tribunal were well reasoned and no ground had been made out to interfere with the same. The driver of the vehicle carrying the goods of the appellant had intentionally not generated the documents relating to the goods with ICC. He had recorded a statement with the respondents that he had been told by the appellant to not to generate bills and other documents at ICC. This fact was itself sufficient to prove that there was intention on the part of the appellant to evade the requisite tax. The penalty was rightly imposed upon the appellant. Therefore, it was urged that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance policy and inspection note. The Taramira was loaded on the vehicle No.PB-13R-4069 without knowledge and permission of the appellant. It was due to some ignorance that the driver of the vehicle could not generate the declaration qua these goods at ICC. The Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant had recorded a finding that the invoice No.264 dated 12.10.2013 relating to the goods in question had been recovered from driver. Undoubtedly, it is mandatory under the provisions of the PVAT Act that the carrier of the goods while entering or leaving the limits of a Punjab State will generate information about the goods at the nearest ICC which was not proved to be shown by the driver in the instant case. However, in our opinion, from this act of driver only, no interference can be drawn that the declaration was not obtained with a view to avoid payment of tax. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Ganpati Foods's case (Supra) M /s Jain Shawls, Bahadarke Road, Dana Mandi, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab, (2010) 36 PHT 65 (P H) (PVAT) wherein non-generation of declaration at ICC was considered to be not sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... saction is shown to have taken place with DMW which is a department of Indian Railway and is a Government department. CST as applicable as per the invoice had been charged. Merely non-reporting about the consignment at the concerned ICC and not making declaration in the prescribed form did not lead to the conclusion that there was violation of Section 51 (4) of PVAT Act with a view to make an attempt to avoid the tax. It is not the case of the respondent that the invoice or GR were not genuine. The authorities below and the Tribunal did not examine the genuineness or otherwise of these invoices and goods receipt etc. and the Tribunal had merely gone by the alleged admission of the driver. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders are not sustainable as the Tribunal was required to examine the entire material on record before concluding that there was any attempt to evade tax on the part of the dealer. In view of this discussion and further in view of ratio of law as laid down in the above cited authorities, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders as passed by the Tribunal are not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
