2022 (2) TMI 1515 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Penalty orders set aside where import declaration had only formal defects and no finding of intentional tax evasion

HC upheld the Tribunal's decision setting aside penalty orders where the assessing authority recorded only formal inadequacies in import declarations but ... Levy of penalties - inadequacy found in two Import Declaration Form/Form 38 - intent to evade tax present or not - HELD THAT:- No finding was recorded by the assessing authority as to intention to evade tax. Merely because of the inadequacies noted, penalties were imposed. The Tribunal has, after taking note of various decision of this Court including Ram Pulses Vs State of U.P. & Others [2009 (9) TMI 986 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] reached a conclusion that in absence of any specific finding as intention to evade tax, the penalty cannot be justified. In absence of any finding existing as to intention to evade tax, order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any defect or error. Revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Revenue filed revision against the Commercial Tax Tribunal's order quashing penalty orders (A.Y. 2008-09) imposed solely for clerical deficiencies in two Import Declaration Forms/Form 38 - one with column 6 left blank and the other found blank. The assessing authority recorded no finding of 'intention to evade tax'; penalties were imposed merely for the noted inadequacies. The Tribunal, relying on precedent (including Ram Pulses v. State of U.P. and The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. v. Deepak Trading Company), held that 'in absence of any specific finding as intention to evade tax, the penalty cannot be justified.' Because there was no finding of deliberate tax evasion, the Tribunal's order was upheld and the revision was dismissed for lack of merit.