2022 (7) TMI 346 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds penalty for tax evasion, stresses accurate records for transportation of goods

The Court allowed the delay in filing the revision, considering the reasons provided by the revisionist as sufficient. The penalty imposed under Section ... Levy of penalty u/s 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008, pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 - no papers were produced despite the fact that goods were being imported from outside the State - goods were being transported with intention to evade tax or not - HELD THAT:- The reason given by the revisionist that the said documents were being carried by their representative who had not accompanied the truck and therefore the said papers could not be produced at the time of inspection. The Tribunal was not satisfied with the reply given by the revisionist in this regard. The other reason recorded by the Tribunal for up holding the order of penalty was that the goods which were being transported from Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) to Lucknow, this fact has been recorded in the bilty as well as Form-38 produced by the revisionist. The reason for the vehicle having been diverted from the set route is the fact that the order from M/s Pancham Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad had to be satisfied and because there was delay in fulfilling their obligation, the truck was directly sent to Allahabad. The Tribunal has recorded that they were not satisfied with the reply given by the revisionist in this regard. All the documents produced by the revisionist clearly pertain to their transportation from Kushidi (Jharkhand) to Lucknow and there was no amendment in the bilty which could indicate that the goods were to be transported from Lucknow to Allahabad. The Tribunal has held that in exercise of powers under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008, penalty imposed on the revisionist was just, proper and reasonable. The documents produced by the revisionist were not relied upon by the Tribunal on the ground that the same have been prepared as an after thought. There is always apprehension that in absence of relevant documents the goods can be sold to unregistered dealers and thereby transaction would not be recorded in the books of account and the tax due would also be evaded. As per provisions contained in Section 50 of the Act, 2008, provides for penalty to stem the evasion of tax and to see that all the transactions are duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee which can subsequently be looked into by the taxing authorities - In the present case, the Tribunal being last fact finding authority has considered the submissions made by the revisionist as well the documents produced before them. The Tribunal after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case has given cogent reasons for not accepting the version of the revisionist, and no interference is required to be made by this Court in exercise of its revisional powers. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal - this Court is satisfied that the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference - Revision dismissed. Issues:Delay in filing revision, Penalty imposed under Section 54(1)(14) of the Value Added Tax Act, 2008, Assessment year 2010-11, Applicability of penalty, Proper documentation for transportation of goods, Evasion of tax, Revision challenging orders of First Appellate Authority and Tribunal, Tribunal's findings and reasoning, Revisional powers of the Court, Precedent case.The judgment addressed the issue of delay in filing the revision, where the revisionist sought condonation of delay due to circumstances involving the receipt and handling of the Tribunal's order. The Court allowed the delay, considering the reasons provided by the revisionist as sufficient, leading to the condonation of the delay.Regarding the penalty imposed under Section 54(1)(14) of the Value Added Tax Act, 2008 for the assessment year 2010-11, the revisionist challenged the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The revisionist contended that the goods were being transported from Jamshedpur to Lucknow, with proper documentation, but the Tribunal found discrepancies in the documentation and diversion of the goods to Allahabad. The Tribunal upheld the penalty based on the revisionist's failure to provide adequate proof of legitimate transactions, leading to suspicion of tax evasion.The Court analyzed the proper documentation required for the transportation of goods, emphasizing the significance of accurate records to prevent tax evasion. The revisionist's explanation of diverting the goods to satisfy an order was deemed insufficient without proper amendments to the documents indicating the change in destination.The judgment delved into the issue of tax evasion, highlighting the importance of recording transactions accurately to prevent sales to unregistered dealers and subsequent tax evasion. Section 50 of the Act provides for penalties to deter tax evasion and ensure proper recording of transactions for tax scrutiny.The Court reviewed the decisions of the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, which rejected the revisionist's appeals based on discrepancies in documentation and suspicions of tax evasion. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the facts and reasons for upholding the penalty demonstrated a thorough consideration of the case, leading to the dismissal of the revision by the Court.In citing a precedent case with similar circumstances, the Court reinforced its decision not to interfere with the Tribunal's judgment, as the facts and legal principles aligned. The Court found no grounds to challenge the Tribunal's decision, indicating that the revision lacked merit and was dismissed accordingly.