9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (6) of section 72 that shall amount to conferring arbitrary powers on the officer empowered who can misuse this power in any or every case. The alternative penalty of Rs. 5000/- provided under sub-section (6) of section 72 shall be imposed for committing breach under clause (a) sub-section (3) in cases where the goods in transportation is not liable to be taxed in Jharkhand. The statutory Authorities have however drawn an inference as to evasion of tax on mere non-production of Road Permit in Form JVAT-504B and approved demand of Rs. 4,76,710.00/- which is three times the tax leviable on such goods. While drawing such inference, the statutory Authorities clearly ignored the provisions under sub-section (6) of section 72 of the JVAT Act that there is an alternative amount of tax which can be imposed by way of penalty for violation of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 72 if the goods in movement are not taxable in Jharkhand. The order dated 5th December 2017 passed in Revision Case No. JR 115 of 2016 for the period 2013-14 is set aside and, consequently, the appellate order dated 2nd March 2016 and the Demand Notice dated 21st March 2014, are quashed - petitioner-F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er had no jurisdiction under section 72 (4) and section 4 of the JVAT Act read with Rule 57 of the JVAT Rules and sufficient opportunity was not afforded in breach of Rule 58 of the JVAT Rules. The petitioner-Firm took a stand that the vehicle was parked outside the gate and it was not in movement. The Joint Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Appeal) did not accept the plea put forth on behalf of the petitioner-Firm and held that the vehicle was carrying goods with an intention to evade tax. The Tribunal referred to State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals (2002) 1 SCC 279 to further hold that the statutory provisions under the JVAT Act are intended to avoid instances of tax evasion at the hands of unscrupulous dealers who do not carry a valid Road Permit. The Tribunal therefore also refused to interfere on the ground that under the Notifications dated 31st March 2006 and 19th February 2009 the transportation of all taxable goods of any nature whether or not liable to tax must be supported by valid statutory Road Permit in Form JVAT-504B. Furthermore, having found that the petitioner-Firm could not offer sufficient explanation as to why Road Permit in Form JVAT-504B was not timely generated, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adu and while so the goods in the transportation was not taxable within the State of Jharkhand. 7. The relevant provisions under section 72 are reproduced herein below: (1) The Government may, with a view to prevent or check avoidance or evasion of tax, by notification in the official gazette, direct the establishment of the check post or barrier at such places as may be specified in the notification, and every officer who exercises powers and discharges his duties at such check post, by way of inspection of documents produced and goods being move, shall be Officer in-charge. (2) Notwithstanding any contained in sub-section (1), no person shall transport from any railway station, steamer station, airport, post-office or from any other place in the State, whether of similar nature or otherwise, notified in this behalf by the State Government, any consignment of such goods, exceeding such quantity, as may be specified in the notification, except in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed and such conditions shall be made with a view to ensuring that there is no evasion of tax payable under this Act. (3) The driver or person in charge of vehicle or goods carrier in moveme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is greater. 8. This is general rule of interpretation that wherever comma appears that would imply a break in the provision which shall be construed in this case as providing alternative penalty for the breach of the provisions under section 3 (a) of the JVAT Act. 9. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) SCC 228 the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as under: 55. The use of the word which twice in the first part of the sub-clause, read with the comma put after each, shows that the legislature wanted these to be read as disjunctive and not conjunctive... 10. In Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) (2) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (2020) 9 SCC 121 the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as under: 21. Construction of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules should be made by giving due weight to the punctuation mark comma after the words the Court may review its judgment or order . The intention of the rule-making authority is clear that the abovementioned part is disjunctive from the rest of the rule. 11. The Legislative intention which appears on a glance at sub-section (6) of section 72 of the JVAT Act is clear and unambiguous and the alternative penalty of Rs. 5000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
