2008 (8) TMI 814

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e can be no mens rea in the circumstances of the case?" By order dated July 4, 2006, whereby the Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Designated Officer, Patiala, imposed a penalty under section 56 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Punjab VAT Act"), on the ground that the dealer (appellant) had availed of wrong input-tax credit and therefore, had to be penalised. By order dated September 25, 2006, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Patiala Division, Patiala, dismissed the appeal, and by order dated January 29, 2007, the VAT Tribunal dismissed the second appeal. The appellant is a dealer, registered under the Punjab VAT Act, and was also a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re any loss occasioned to the Revenue on this account, because, as mentioned above, even without taking this credit of Rs. 55,368 into account, the appellant was not liable to pay any tax. He further urged that the Tribunal had erred in holding as follows: ". . . That fact that more amount was standing to the credit of the firm on account of ITC, does not warrant an inference that there was no intention on the part of the appellant-firm to claim excess amount. . ." A conspectus of all the facts, recorded above, makes it clear that even without availing of the credit of Rs. 55,368, the appellant was not liable to pay any tax. Thus, it cannot be said that by this action any profit or gain was caused to the appellant or any loss occasion....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dealer. Granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty was made out." Similarly, in the case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore [1980] 45 STC 197, the honourable Supreme Court held as follows (at page 200):   ". . . What section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, requires is that the assessee should have filed a 'false' return and a return cannot be said to be 'false' unless there is an element of deliberateness in it. It is possible that even where the incorrectness of the return is claimed to be due to want of care on the part of the assessee and there is no reasonable explanation forthcoming from the assessee for such want of care, the....