TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the name of a dealer at Kundannur, Kochi. The said invoice and the 'bill of entry' evidencing that the goods were imported from China, were available with the transport. The Intelligence Inspector recorded statement of the driver of the vehicle, who deposed that the consignment in question was loaded at the container freight station at Petta, Kochi. The Intelligence Inspector detained the transport demanding payment of security under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act on noticing the following irregularities:- "The vehicle with the consignment is intercepted and checked in Maradu - Kundannur road, while plying towards Kundannur. On verification of the document it is seen that the consignor is transporting the goods from Kasaragod to Kundannur. The deposition of the driver of the vehicle reveals that the consignment is loaded from Container Freight Station, Petta. No 8FA/8F declaration as per Section 46(3)(e) of the KVAT Act, 2003 read with Rule 66(6)(ba) of the KVAT Rules, 2005, is seen appended with the bill of entry produced even though the consignment is imported from China on 04.02.2014 and de-stuffed in the Container Freight Station, Petta as per the deposition of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only intended to escape from the liability. Further it was observed that, the dealer was well aware about the requirement of furnishing Form 8FA declaration because he had previous experience of importing such goods and making such declarations. Hence it was concluded that there existed purposeful attempt at evasion of payment of tax and therefore penalty was imposed to the tune of Rs. 2,61,080/-. 5. In the appeal filed by the revision petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner Appeals, Commercial Tax, Kozhikode, it was contended that the documents produced before the Enquiry Officer would reveal that the revision petitioner was keeping true and complete accounts and that the order impugned was passed without verification of those records. It was also pointed out that the Enquiry Officer had never demanded production of any further documents to prove that there was no attempt at evasion of payment of tax. According to the revision petitioner, the statement of the driver, recorded by the Intelligence Officer, would clearly prove genuineness of the transaction and there had no occasion to draw any adverse inference in such circumstances. But the Appellate Authority found that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Section 46(3)(e) of the KVAT Act. The wording used in Section 46(3)(e) that, "where goods are imported into the State through coastal cargo, through air and through the railways" indicate clearly that the reference is with respect to the mode of transport. It can only be interpreted that the word "coastal cargo" used therein indicate the mode of import through ship, which is nothing but an import through ship cargo. 8. Further contention raised is that, the sale made by the revision petitioner was properly accounted and that the sale was effected through the invoice drawn, which accompanied the transport. Therefore it is contended that, even though there occurred a mistake or omission in declaring the goods under Rule 66(6)(ba) of the KVAT Rules or in obtaining Form 8FA declaration and accompanying the same along with the transport, it cannot be presumed that there existed any attempt at evasion of payment of tax. It is argued that the intent and purport of the enquiry contemplated under sub-section (6) of Section 47 is to ascertain whether there was any attempt to evade payment of tax due under the Act, at the time of the transport. Therefore a mere omission with respect to d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... KTR 65 (Kerala)]. It is held therein that the declaration of goods transported at the check post is an important safeguard which the law contemplates against evasion of tax. When goods are declared, it will be an assured safeguard that the assessee will return and pay the correct tax due in time. Therefore, when such declaration was not made, there would be an inference that there is an attempt to evade tax. 11. While considering the rival contentions, we take note of the fact that, there occurred failure on the part of the revision petitioner in making the declaration with respect to goods imported, as amended under Section 46(3)(e) read with Rule 66(6)(ba). Consequently, there was a failure to accompany the transport with Form 8FA declaration. Going through Section 47(2) of the Act, such an irregularity is sufficient enough to create a suspicion in the mind of the intercepting authority with respect to attempt at evasion of payment of tax. But, while taking the enquiry under sub-section (6) of Section 47, the authority is bound to make a probe in order to arrive at a finding that there existed an attempt for evasion for payment of tax, at the time when the transport was made. ....