TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing today. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the fifth respondent whereby the respondent, in exercise of powers under sub-section (5) of section 68 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the VAT Act"), has directed seizure of the goods of the petitioner and assessed tax at Rs. 1,65,240/- and imposed penalty at 150% thereof at Rs. 2,47,860/-, and directed the petitioner to pay in all Rs. 4,13,100/-. Moreover, the petitioner has also been directed to pay Rs. 12,880/- towards input tax. 4. The facts giving rise to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the goods and the truck. The petitioner thereafter by a letter dated 19.08.2014, once again requested the fifth respondent to release the truck and the goods stating that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the legitimate tax and interest thereon as and when the same is assessed by the fifth respondent. Another letter dated 20.08.2014 came to be addressed by the petitioner to the respondents to release the truck and the goods on the ground that the respondents have no right or authority to detain the truck and the goods of the petitioner under the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the VAT Act. By the impugned order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the fifth respondent under section 68(5) of the VAT Act, the petitioner was directed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied with while passing the impugned order, has assessed the tax payable at an exorbitant amount dehors the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 68 of the VAT Act. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed the petition, by reiterating the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the fifth respondent. It was submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is required to be seen, inasmuch as, the truck in question was detained at Sagbara and not at Songadh check post; as soon as the truck was stopped, the driver of the truck had fled from the scene and had returned after an hour and submitted a Manual Form No.402. It was further submitted that against the impugned or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-. However, even if the goods are meant for sale within the State of Gujarat, the highest amount of tax that could be leviable would be at the rate of 15%, which would come to Rs. 54,000/-. Therefore, the maximum tax that could have been recovered by the respondents in respect of the goods in question would be to the tune of Rs. 54,000/-, whereas in the facts of the present case, the fifth respondent has assessed the tax at Rs. 1,65,240/-. Moreover, the penalty, at best, could be one and one-half times the amount of tax, whereas having regard to the fact that the tax itself has been assessed at more than three times the normal rate, the penalty at 150% of that amount, is also equally exorbitant. 9. Furthermore, from the facts which have....