2025 (12) TMI 943 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Penalty u/s15-A(1)(c) quashed as income-tax survey alone can't prove sales tax concealment or mens rea

HC set aside the penalty imposed under s.15-A(1)(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act on the revisionist-assessee. Penalty proceedings had been initiated solely ... Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 15-A (1) (c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act - no material evidence has been found which may lead to a conclusion that turnover of sales has been suppressed for concealed which is an essential ingredient for levy of penalty under the said section - HELD THAT:- It is not in disputed that the penalty has been initiated against the revisionist solely on the ground that the survey was conducted on 20.01.2007 by the Income Tax Department and certain suppression of income of Rs. 15 lacs was found. On the said premise, the present penalty proceedings have been initiated and the penalty order was passed on 24.02.2012 imposing penalty of Rs.10/- lacs, against which, the matter travelled up to the Tribunal, but by the impugned order, the Tribunal has confirmed the penalty without recording any independent finding. The issues have securely covered by the judgments to this Court in the case of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate [1978 (8) TMI 195 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. It is submitted by the assessee is not accepted and is not simply entitled the respondent department to levy penalty under Section 15(1)(c) of the Act, the Department has to bring on record the material to establish the guilt of the revisionist in absence thereof penalty cannot sustained - The record shows, no such finding has been recorded by any of the orders. The order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly in favour of the revisionist and against the revenue - revision allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act can be sustained when based solely on material and findings recorded by the Income Tax Department in its survey, without any independent finding by the trade tax authorities. 1.2 Whether imposition of penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c) is legally permissible in absence of specific material and findings establishing suppression or concealment of turnover by the assessee. 1.3 Whether penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c) can be upheld when the first appellate authority, in reassessment proceedings, has itself recorded that enhancement in valuation of stock is not related to purchases/sales or quantum of physical stock. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1 Basis for penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c) and use of 'borrowed' material Legal framework (as discussed): The Court considered Section 15-A(1)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, which authorizes imposition of penalty where there is concealment or deliberate suppression relevant for trade tax purposes. The Court referred to earlier decisions holding that penalty cannot be imposed merely on the basis of 'borrowed' satisfaction from income tax proceedings and that the trade tax authorities must themselves record relevant findings. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the penalty proceedings were initiated and concluded solely on the ground that a survey was conducted by the Income Tax Department on 20.01.2007, wherein alleged suppression of income of Rs. 15 lakhs was found. The penalty order was passed on that premise without any independent evaluation by the trade tax authorities. The Tribunal, in affirming penalty, also did not record any independent factual finding but merely relied upon the fact of the income tax survey and reassessment outcome. The Court, relying on the precedents cited (M/s Satya Confectionery Works, M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate, Northern India Chemical Works), held that such reliance upon material from Income Tax proceedings, without independent examination of its relevance and without independent findings about concealment/suppression for trade tax purposes, is insufficient to justify penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c). The Department must 'bring on record the material to establish the guilt of the revisionist'; mere existence of income tax survey findings does not by itself meet this requirement. Conclusions: The Court held that the penalty order and its affirmation by the Tribunal, based merely on the Income Tax Department's survey and findings and without any independent finding by the trade tax authorities, could not be sustained under Section 15-A(1)(c). The Tribunal erred in affirming penalty on such 'borrowed' material alone. 2.2 Requirement of material and finding of suppression/concealment for penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c) Legal framework (as discussed): Section 15-A(1)(c) requires, as an essential ingredient, concealment or suppression by the assessee that constitutes a culpable act justifying penalty. The Court treated 'guilt' in the sense of a positive finding of suppression/concealment as a precondition for penalty. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recorded that there was no finding by any authority that the assessee had suppressed or concealed turnover of sales. The record did not show any specific material or analysis by the trade tax authorities linking the alleged discrepancies found in the income tax survey to actual suppression or concealment of turnover liable to trade tax. The Court emphasized that mere non-acceptance of the assessee's explanation or mere existence of an addition or enhancement in assessment does not automatically justify penalty; the authority must bring concrete material on record and record a finding that the assessee is guilty of suppression/concealment as contemplated by Section 15-A(1)(c). The Court observed that, in the present case, such a finding was altogether absent in all orders, including that of the Tribunal. In the absence of these essential findings, the statutory precondition for invoking Section 15-A(1)(c) was not satisfied. Conclusions: The Court concluded that, as there was no specific material or recorded finding establishing suppression or concealment of turnover by the assessee, the essential ingredient for penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c) was missing. Consequently, the levy of penalty was unsustainable in law. 2.3 Effect of appellate finding that stock valuation enhancement not related to purchases/sales or physical stock Interpretation and reasoning: The Court took note of the finding recorded by the first appellate authority in the reassessment proceedings that the enhancement in the valuation of stock found on 20.01.2007 'is neither related to purchase sale nor with the quantum of physical stock.' This finding directly undermined any inference that the alleged discrepancy in stock valuation represented unrecorded purchases, unrecorded sales, or suppressed turnover. Given this appellate finding, the Court held that there was no established nexus between the alleged stock valuation enhancement and taxable turnover for trade tax purposes. Without such nexus, use of that enhancement as a foundation for inferring concealment or suppression of sales, and hence for imposing penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c), was impermissible. The Tribunal, in affirming penalty without addressing or displacing this finding, acted contrary to the reasoning that penalty must rest on established suppression or concealment related to taxable turnover. Conclusions: The Court held that, in light of the first appellate authority's finding that the stock valuation enhancement did not relate to purchases, sales, or physical stock, no legal basis remained to treat that enhancement as suppressed sales or concealed turnover. Accordingly, penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c) could not be sustained on that basis, and the Tribunal's affirmation of penalty was erroneous. 2.4 Overall disposition Interpretation and reasoning: Synthesizing the above, the Court found that (i) the penalty was imposed solely on the basis of income tax survey material without independent trade tax findings; (ii) there was no recorded finding of suppression or concealment of turnover; and (iii) the reassessment appellate finding expressly disconnected the stock valuation enhancement from purchases/sales and physical stock. In this cumulative factual and legal scenario, the statutory conditions for penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c) were not met. Conclusions: The Court answered the admitted questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, quashed the impugned orders upholding penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c), set aside the penalty, and allowed the revision.