TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner Granted Release of Goods with Surety Bond & Deposit</h1> The Court held that the petitioner could secure the release of goods by furnishing a surety bond and depositing 30% of the penalty amount imposed under ... Punjab Value Added Tax - Detention of goods – alleged that attempt to evade/avoid tax was made by the petitioner by not reporting the paddy/rice at the barrier - goods were meant for trade and not covered by proper/genuine documents – Held that:- Vehicle has to be released in accordance with provisions of Section 51(6)(a) of the Act. In respect of the goods, the explanation under Section 51(7) of the Act must be interpreted in the light of the provisions of sub Section (5) of Section 62 of the Act. Accordingly, the principles of harmonious construction would lead us to a conclusion that 30% of the penal amount be deposited by the petitioner - writ petition stands disposed of Issues:1. Release of goods on furnishing of surety bond.2. Imposition of penalty under Section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.3. Interpretation of provisions of Section 51(7) and Section 62(5) of the Act.4. Release of vehicle and goods in accordance with the law.5. Deposit required for appeal and release of goods.Issue 1: Release of goods on furnishing of surety bondThe petitioner sought the release of its goods upon furnishing a surety bond attested by ETO Pathankot. The respondents had detained the goods due to an alleged attempt to evade tax by not reporting paddy/rice at the barrier. A penalty of Rs. 1,65,375 was imposed under Section 51(7)(b) of the Act, and the vehicle with goods was to be released after the penalty amount was realized.Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005The order passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner imposed a penalty on the petitioner for attempting to evade tax. The penalty was based on the assessed value of goods and was to be realized before the release of the vehicle and goods.Issue 3: Interpretation of provisions of Section 51(7) and Section 62(5) of the ActThe Court examined the provisions of Section 51(7) which govern the release of detained goods after the imposition of a penalty. The petitioner argued that Section 62(5) required only a 25% deposit for appeal, while the respondent contended that the penalty amount had to be paid for goods release.Issue 4: Release of vehicle and goods in accordance with the lawThe Court held that the vehicle should be released as per Section 51(6)(a) of the Act. Regarding the goods, a harmonious interpretation of Section 51(7) and Section 62(5) led to a decision that 30% of the penalty amount should be deposited for release, allowing the petitioner to appeal the order.Issue 5: Deposit required for appeal and release of goodsThe Court concluded that the vehicle and goods would be released upon depositing 30% of the penal amount and furnishing a surety bond to the detaining officer. The petitioner retained the right to challenge the order in appeal, ensuring compliance with the legal provisions.In summary, the judgment addressed the release of goods upon furnishing a surety bond, the imposition of a penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions, the lawful release of the vehicle and goods, and the deposit required for appeal and goods release, providing a detailed analysis and resolution for each issue raised in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
