TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 645
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Eight Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred Ninety Six) by way of composition of the said offence as alleged against the it. The challenge primarily is on the ground that under the provision of Section 89 of the Act of 2003, the Superintendent of Taxes is not empowered to compound an offence under the Act. 3. The petitioner/ Company is a transporter and had entered into an agreement with the Bharti Hexacom Ltd., for transportation of its goods within the Northeastern region and also outside the region. In connection with transportation agreement entered into by the petitioner/ Company with the Bharati Hexacom Ltd., two trucks bearing No. AS-01W- 6531 and AS-01AC-9308 were loaded with goods of the Bharti Airtel Ltd. purportedly for transportation to Andhra Pradesh on stock transfer basis. The loading of the said truck was made at Meghalaya. While crossing the Khanapara Check Post, the said trucks were come to be detained and the drivers were issued with notices requiring production of supporting documents in connection with the transportation of goods by the said trucks. The authorized representative of the petitioner/ Company submitted a representation before the Superintendent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... record, it is seen that on receipt of the said show-cause notice, the Vice President of the petitioner/ Company vide communication dated 29-12-2012, prayed for compounding of the offence under Section 89 of the Act of 2003 in lieu of prosecution and offered an amount of Rs. 8,99,196/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred Ninety Six) being the equivalent amount of the tax, as composition money and requested for acceptance of the composition amount and dropping of the prosecution. On receipt of the said communication dated 29-12-2012, the Superintendent of Taxes, Khanapara Check Post, Guwahati, Assam, i.e. the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 29-12-2012, proceeded to invoke the provision of Section 89 of the Act of 2003 and compounded the offence leveled against the petitioner/ Company under Section 85(1)(n) of the Act of 2003. Accordingly, in exercise of powers delegated upon the respondent No. 3 under the provision of Section 89 of the Act of 2003, proceeded to accept from the petitioner/ Company an amount of Rs. 8,99,196/- by way of composition of the said offence and the amount was directed to be deposited into the designated Bank on or before 07-01-2013. Accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inabove, has referred to the provisions of Section 89 of the Act of 2003 and has submitted that the same confers the power for compounding an offence under the Act under Section 85 or under the Rules made under the Act only upon the Commissioner of Taxes. She further submits that the Superintendent of Taxes nor being empowered to compound an offence under Section 89 of the Act of 2003, the order dated 27-12-2012 is non-est in the eyes of law and the same would mandate interference by this Court. She further contends that the amount of Rs. 8,99,196/- which was deposited by the petitioner/ Company was so deposited as security money under Section 76(4) of the Act of 2003, which was contended to have been illegally adjusted by the respondent No. 3 as the amount for compounding the offence involved. She further submits that the very compounding of the offence being without jurisdiction, the order dated 27-12-2012 passed by the respondent No. 3 is non-est in the eyes of law and accordingly the same would mandate interference by this Court with further direction for refund of the money as accepted from the petitioner/ Company towards composition of the offence alleged in the matter. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rule 41(9) of the Rules of 2005, a notice for show-cause against the prosecution under Section 85 of the Act of 2003 came to be issued to the petitioner/ Company. The notice had in details set out the offence committed by the petitioner/ Company in relation to the transportation of the goods by the two trucks involved. 8. It is seen that on receipt of the said notice under Section 85 of the Act of 2003, the Vice President of the petitioner/ Company had issued a communication dated 29-12- 2012. The said communication being relevant is extracted, here-in-below: "OM Telecom Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Read Office: 130, TC, Ring Road, Punjabi Bag, New Delhi-110035 The Superintendent of Taxes Khanapara Check Post Dated: 29 December, 2012 Subject: Request for compounding of offences u/s 89 of the AVAT Act, 2003 in lieu of prosecution Sir, With reference to the notice for showing cause against prosecution, we admit that we have committed offence by producing forged documents at your check post in respect of transportation of telecom equipments through two vehicles having registration numbers AS-01-W-6531 and AS-01-AC- 9308, showin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to the following effect: GOVT. OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES, KHANAPARA CHECK POST: JORABAT GUWAHATI :: ASSAM No. KCP/4/2012-13/2302 Dated, the 29th December, 2012 To, Om Telecom Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Guwahati Sub: Intimation regarding the acceptance of composition money under section 89 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 Whereas Om Telecom Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Is charged with an offence(s) under section 8511)(n) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and whereas the said Shri Ashish Mathur Vice, President, on behalf of Om Telecom Logistics Pvt. Ltd. requests that the said offences may be compounded under section 89 of the said Act. Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred on / delegated to me by section 89 of the said Act, I accept from Om Telecom Logistics Pvt. Ltd., a sum of Rs. 899,196/-(Rs. Eight lac ninety nine thousand one hundred & ninety six only) by way of composition of the said offences. Provided that- (i) the said sum is paid into the Designated Bank at not later than 7/1/2013 and (ii) the said Om Telecom Logistics ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter, to be an act done without jurisdiction. The provision of sub-Section (2) of Section 89 mandates that the Commissioner shall not compound an offence under this section and or pass an order for payment of composition money unless the person concerned admitted in writing that he had committed an offence. A perusal of the communication dated 29-12-2012 issued by the Vice President of the petitioner/ Company (extracted hereinabove) would go to reveal that the Company had accepted the commission of an offence of producing forged documents by it in connection with vehicles in question and also of offering an amount of Rs. 8,99,196/- being equivalent to the tax amount, as composition money, with a further request to accept the same and for dropping the prosecution. The order dated 29-12-2012 being in acceptance of such offer made by the petitioner/ Company issued by the respondent No. 3, this Court finds that the provision of Section 89 of the act of 2003 was complied with by the respondent No. 3 before issuing the order dated 29-12-2012. 13. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would also examine the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the....