2016 (11) TMI 977 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Importance of Proper Documentation: Upheld Tax Penalty for Incomplete Declaration Form

The High Court upheld the penalty imposed by the Tax Board for carrying goods without a complete declaration Form VAT-47, despite the petitioner's ... Levy of penalty for not following procedure for movement of vehicle carrying goods - Imposition of penalty u/Sec.76(6) of the Act - incomplete declaration in Form VAT-47 - Held that: - in view of Notification dt.08.07.2009, the goods were notified and they were required to be carried with a declaration Form VAT-47 and in fact the declaration Form VAT-47 was carried but was incomplete in all respects. It is not a case where the assessee was not carrying a declaration Form VAT-47 and same was produced and another in pursuance to a show cause notice - the original declaration Form VAT-47 was incomplete and thereafter a fresh declaration Form VAT-47 has been obtained from the department on the next day and then has been placed before the Assessing Officer which in my view has rightly been held by the Tax Board to be improper. There is also a finding recorded by the Dy. Commissioner (A) that there was no punching of the declaration Form VAT-47 and once punching is not found, this Court has already taken a view in the case of ITC Agrotech Limited, through its Manager Ramlal Verma Versus Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion 1, Circle 2, Jaipur [2016 (9) TMI 1085 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] holding that the punching having been introduced in VAT laws as an additional feature, it is also required to be taken care of by the assessee, that the punching is to be done and if not then there is a serious deficiency. Penalty rightly imposed - decided against appellant-assessee. Issues:Violation of tax regulations regarding the carrying of declaration Form VAT-47.Analysis:The case involved a petition against an order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board concerning the carrying of goods without a complete declaration Form VAT-47. The vehicle was intercepted carrying metallic utensils, and although the driver produced some documents, the Assessing Officer found the declaration Form VAT-47 incomplete. A penalty was imposed under Sec.76(6) of the Act. The Dy. Commissioner (A) later set aside the penalty, considering other documents and lack of intention to evade tax. However, the Tax Board reversed this decision and upheld the penalty.The petitioner argued that there was no necessity for the declaration Form VAT-47, but it was produced as a precaution. They claimed that filing a fresh complete form should suffice, citing a judgment of the Apex Court. The High Court analyzed the case and noted that the goods were required to be carried with a complete declaration Form VAT-47 as per a notification. The original form was incomplete, and a new one was obtained the next day, which the Tax Board deemed improper. The court referred to previous cases emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and compliance with VAT laws.The High Court found no fault in the Tax Board's decision, citing judgments like Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer and ACTO Vs. Indian Oil Corporation as applicable. The court dismissed the petition, stating no grounds for interference due to the lack of merit in the arguments presented.