2011 (4) TMI 1248 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tax evasion appeal denied, penalty upheld for concealed transactions. Factual findings crucial.

Chirag Agency Versus State of Bihar and Others

The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the penalty imposed for concealing purchases and sales to evade tax. The Court found no ... Whether the explanation offered by the assessee for noninclusion of the four sales in question in the stock registers/documents of the assessee have been found to be unacceptable? Held that:- We uphold the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the present appeal does not raise any question of law, let alone a substantial question of law. The learned counsel for the assessee has raised only issues of facts which are concluded by concurrent findings of facts consistently recorded by the three quasi-judicial authorities. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Appellant's appeal under section 79 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 challenging the judgment of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal.2. Allegations of concealment of purchase and sales to evade tax.3. Imposition of penalty under section 32(1) of the VAT Act.4. Non-inclusion of sales in the stock register and connected documents.5. Determination of substantial questions of law for consideration in the appeal.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal under section 79 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders of the lower authorities. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the issuance of delivery orders instead of tax invoices, concealment of purchase and sales, and the imposition of penalties.2. The authorities conducted a search and seizure at the appellant's premises and found that sales made by a supplier to the appellant were not entered in the stock register and related documents. The Commercial Tax Officer imposed a penalty on the appellant for escaped turnover. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, concluding that the appellant intentionally concealed purchases and sales to evade tax.3. The imposition of the penalty under section 32(1) of the VAT Act was contested by the appellant, arguing that the tax payable was collected in advance by the selling company. However, the authorities found that the appellant failed to include the sales in the stock register, leading to the penalty imposition.4. The appellant's explanation for not including the sales in the stock register was rejected by all three quasi-judicial authorities, including the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the appellant's failure to record the purchases and sales in the books indicated an intention to evade tax with the selling company's connivance.5. The High Court upheld the respondents' preliminary objection that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that findings of facts by lower authorities are generally accepted, and interference by the High Court is warranted only if no person instructed in law could reach the same conclusion based on the evidence. The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Revenue.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the penalty imposed for concealing purchases and sales to evade tax. The Court found no substantial question of law raised in the appeal and emphasized the importance of factual findings by lower authorities in such cases.