TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....08.2021, passed by the Appellate Tribunal Value Added Tax, Delhi (hereafter 'the Tribunal') confirming the levy of tax amounting to Rs.4,91,096/- as well as levy of penalty under Section 86(14) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter 'the DVAT Act'). 2. The controversy, in the present case, relates to the issue whether the goods discovered in the appellant's godown were liable to be considered as the appellant's goods in terms of Section 3(9) of the DVAT Act. 3. The Tribunal accepted that the appellant had failed to furnish information regarding the receipts of the goods found at its godown and, therefore, the same were required to be considered as goods owned by him and held for sale in Delhi. The tax and penalty have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ip of the goods could not be verified. Thus, for protecting the interest of revenue, the VATO passed an order directing that the goods should not be moved. In addition, the concerned VATO also directed the appellant to get a confirmation regarding the ownership of the goods with complete documents for release of the same. 6. It is the appellant's case that he submitted a letter dated 13.03.2006 requesting that the godown be de-sealed. The appellant claimed that he transports goods on behalf of his customers and delivers the same to various consignees at their directions along with the requisite documents. The appellant also assured that the goods would be delivered only when the same would be released by the VATO. Default Assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at the time of inspection, the appellant was liable to pay tax on the goods as assessed. This was on the presumption that the goods were owned by the appellant. 13. The learned OHA also rejected the contention that the goods were not in the course of transportation. The learned OHA reasoned that since the goods had left the premises of the selling dealer but had not reached the destination; the goods were required to be considered as in transit. Consequently, provisions of Section 61 of the DVAT Act, were applicable. 14. In view of the above the learned OHA passed an order dated 20.04.2006 rejecting the appellant's objections. Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal 15. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2006 passed by the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o rebut the presumption under Section 3(9) of the DVAT Act. 21. In so far as the levy of penalty under Section 86(19) of the DVAT Act is concerned, the Appellate Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that the goods in question were not required to be considered as "being carried" by a transport and therefore, the penalty could not be levied under Section 86(19) of the DVAT Act. 22. However, the penalty imposed under Section 86(14) of the DVAT Act was upheld. Reasons and Conclusion 23. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to Section 3(9) of the DVAT Act. The same is set out below: "3. Imposition of tax xxxx xxxx xxxx (9) If any person who transports goods or holds goods in custody f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he record indicates that the appellant had produced the relevant documents at a subsequent stage prior to the order of default assessment. There appears to be no real dispute that the appellant had done so. The appellant has produced photocopies of the documents that were filed before the VATO Enforcement at the time of the default assessment or prior, thereto. These were also produced before the Appellate Tribunal. 28. It is the appellant's case that although the documents were not produced at the time of inspection of the godown, they were produced immediately thereafter. According to the respondents, the same does not negate the presumption under Section 3(9) of the DVAT Act; the respondents contend that the documents are required to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instead of at the godown. 33. In our view, it would be open for a person found in custody of goods to produce the relevant information in its possession in respect of the goods within a reasonable time on being required to do so by the Commissioner. The question as to what is a reasonable period of time for providing information is necessarily required to be determined in the facts of each case. In the given facts of the present case, the question as noted in paragraph no. 4 above is required to be answered in the affirmative; that is, in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. 34. It is material to note that none of the Authorities have even examined whether the documents produced by the appellant established the ownership ....