Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (11) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g true and correct invoice pertaining to the current transaction - the findings so given by the Tribunal are liable to be set aside, as it was merely a clerical mistake, that only the name of the consignee was wrongly mentioned while picking the name of the appellant from drop-down menu in the software used by the Noida Head Office of the appellant. Futher, it is not being disputed that the Dehradun Branch in whose favour, the invoice was mistakenly generated, does not deal with the goods, which were being transported, vide invoice No. 157. Penalty can be imposed to evade tax and not for bona fide mistake. The driver in the present case voluntarily reported the goods at ICC Jharmari for generating necessary information and goods were accomp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tral Hope Town, Salqui industrial Area, Dehradun amounting to Rs. 16,27,383/-. (Annexure A-1) (ii) VAT/Tax/IBTM Invoice No. 000530 dated 19.06.2009 issued by M/s Dixon India (P) Ltd., Noida in favour of M/s Dixon Technolgies India (P) Ltd., Mohali. (Annexure A-2) It is submitted that in the Invoice No. 157 mentioned above, the address of consignee was mistakenly printed as that of Dehradun concern as the computer operator selected the name of consignee as M/s Dixon Utilities and Export Pvt. Ltd., Central Hope town, Salqui Industrial Area, Dehradun instead of M/s Dixon Technologies India (P) Ltd., Mohali from the Drop Down menu in the software being used by the Noida Office for generating Invoices/Bills, but, in the log book prepa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were released on furnishing bank guarantees. The representative of Mohali branch appeared and furnished all Account Books, sale/purchase Vouchers and other necessary documents with the written reply stating therein, that the address of Dehradun Branch was mentioned by mistake and same is liable to be ignored. However, AETC imposed penalty of Rs. 4,88,215/- under section 51(7) (b), vide order dated 30.06.2009 Annexure A-5, on the ground that goods were not covered with proper Genuine documents and there was an attempt to evade the tax ignoring the fact that once the goods are reported voluntarily, there remains no scope of this transaction going out of the books of accounts of the dealer as the goods were reported voluntarily at the ICC by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the ICC, which rules out any evasion of tax? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in not following its own judgment on the similar issue despite the fact that it was delivered by the same member? At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Division Bench judgment of this Court in a case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (47) PHT (82) P H wherein similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee, who was dealing in manufacturing of Electronic goods, colour tv, air conditioner etc and had country wide network with branches including the one at Ludhiana. It also sent the goods to stock transfer basis to v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Road, Lucknow. 3. G.R. No. 146715 dated 14.11.2009 of M/s Coastal Roadways Limited, Kolkata from Greater Noida to Ludhiana. 4. Packing list. If there was intention on the part of the appellant to evade tax, it would not have voluntarily furnished Invoice No. 10137172 for Rs. 2,08,780/- in respect of 23 Colour TVs which were dispatched from Greater Noida to Ludhiana. It was not disputed that the driver of the vehicle had presented both the invoices i.e. No. 10137174 and 10137172 in respect of the goods amounting to Rs. 12,55,154/- and Rs. 2,08,780/- respectively. One consolidated GR No. 146715 from Greater Noida to Ludhiana alongwith the packing list was also presented. In such circumstances, it could not be said that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates