TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b General Sales Tax Act,1948 (for short "the PGST Act") and Central Sales Tax Act,1956 (for short "the CST Act") and subsequently under the VAT Act. It has also been granted exemption from payment of tax for a period of seven years with effect from March 27, 2000 to March 26, 2007 for an amount of Rs. 28,50,58,500 vide its exemption certificate dated July 27, 2001 (annexure A1). Subsequent to the enforcement of VAT Act with effect from April 1, 2004 it was granted an entitlement certificate for tax exemption subject to the un-utilised maximum of Rs. 19,57,82,271 for the remaining period with effect from April 1, 2005 to March 26, 2007 vide entitlement certificate dated June 13, 2005 (annexure A2). It is claimed that the goods were sold by the appellant-assessee (consignor) to consignee-M/s. Misbah Fabrication, Hari Singh Street, Srinagar vide invoice No. 3858 dated March 26, 2007 and earmarked for loading in truck No. JK03A 1334 vide GR No. 2075 dated March 26, 2007 in the name of Kaka Transport. The truck bearing No. JK03A 1334 reported at information collection centre (ICC) Madhopur on March 30, 2007. It is not disputed that the required documents as envisaged under sub-sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on a later date?" At the time of hearing issue No. (iii) was re-phrased as "whether it could be said that there was an attempt to evade or avoid payment of tax by mere delayed movement of goods when the sale invoices/bills had been issued on March 26, 2007, goods were earmarked and goods receipts issued to the vehicles for their onward transmission to the consignees on the same date". The learned counsel for the appellant-company has argued that the goods were voluntarily reported at ICC Center and all the statutory documents required under sub-section (2) of section 51 of the VAT Act were produced there and therefore the designated officer/AETC could not legally exercise jurisdiction under clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 51 and impose penalty for alleged attempt to evade tax which otherwise falls within the exclusive domain of the assessing authority under section 56 of the VAT Act, if any such alleged offence is committed. He further argued that when the sale of goods had taken place and sale invoices had been issued on March 26, 2007 and the goods had been earmarked and delivered to the transporter vide valid goods receipt for their onward transmission to the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....void or evade the tax due or likely to be due under this Act, he shall, by order impose on the consignor or consignee of the goods, a penalty, which shall be equal to thirty per cent of the value of the goods. In case he finds otherwise, he shall order release of the goods and the vehicle, if not already released, after recording reasons in writing and shall decide the matter finally within a period of fourteen days from the commencement of the enquiry proceedings." A plain reading of clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 51 of the VAT Act makes it clear that the designated officer can impose a penalty equal to 30 per cent of the value of the goods either on the consignor or consignee of the goods if he, after enquiry, finds that there is an attempt to avoid or evade tax due or likely to be due under the Act (the Act is defined under sub-section (1) of section 1 to mean the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005). However, before conducting the enquiry the officer is required to serve a notice on the consignor or consignee of the goods detained under section 51(6)(a) of the VAT Act and give him an opportunity of being heard. It is not disputed that the appellant-company was enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-dated with a view to avoid payment of tax. It is further apparent that the assessee-company has after March 26, 2007 sold and dispatched the goods and has paid tax on the same. It is a different matter that number of such transactions is quite small in comparison to the sale transactions entered upon on March 26, 2007. No evidence has been led by the Revenue to show that the consignees or purchase orders or the goods receipts relating to transaction on March 26, 2007 are fictitious. It has also not been shown that there is any statutory requirement laying down that the goods have to be moved and reported within a particular time-frame before any ICC Center after the issue of sale invoice or goods receipt. It is also not disputed that the movement of goods in pursuance of 136 sale invoices dated March 26, 2007 except the seven involved in the present appeals were cleared by the ICC Centers where also the movement of goods was delayed. The explanation put forth by the assessee for delayed movement is that there was non-availability of the trucks at the time the goods were earmarked to them by the truck union while issuing the goods receipts. Three is nothing which prevented the a....