Allahabad High Court
The Commissioner Commercial Tax vs S/S Agra Consult Pvt. Ltd. on 7 April, 2022
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 34 of 2016 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S Agra Consult Pvt. Ltd. Counsel for Revisionist :- Nimai Dass Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Vide office report dated 10.12.2021 the service of notice is deemed to be served. Today when the matter is taken up nobody is present for the respondent nor any request was made for passing of the case.
Heard Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant.
The present revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 17.10.2015 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 142 of 2015, Assessment Year 2010-11, arising out of penalty proceedings initiated under section 54(1)(5) of U.P. VAT Act in which following questions of law have been framed:
"(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 54(1)(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act?
(B) Where the dealer being a registered dealer deliberately not obtained tax invoice while purchasing the goods from registered dealer?"
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondent being a registered dealer and has purchased the ply board from a registered party but has deliberately not obtained the tax invoice while purchasing such goods and, therefore, levey of penalty and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority but the Tribunal without there being any material reversed the finding of the authorities below, he prays for allowing the revision.
The Court has perused the records.
It is admitted that the respondent is a registered dealer. It is also admitted for the period 15.7.2010 to 28.12.2010 ply boards were purchased through sale invoice. The said purchases have been made by 17 sale invoice for six months. This shows that the respondent deliberately not obtained tax invoice in spite of being a registered dealer while purchasing the aforesaid goods on which there is a liability of tax. The value of the goods was of Rs. 63.74 lacs on which the penalty of Rs. 25,49,614/- was imposed. The Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority have recorded a finding of fact that the dealer has deliberately not obtained tax invoice against the purchases continuously for the six months. The purchases were being made from 17 sale invoice to the value of Rs. 63.74 lacs and no explanation has been given for doing so. Assertion has been made that the respondent send Tin No. by Fax and intimated on Phone. The record reveals that after receiving the first consignment of sale invoice dated 15.72010 no action was taken by the respondent and no material has been brought before the Tribunal to show that there was no deliberate action of the respondent for obtaining tax invoice. The Tribunal without verifying the material available on record has just reversed the finding on the basis that there was no deliberate action of the respondent. The Tribunal has further erred in law that there is no loss to the revenue. It is a matter of common knowledge that the present proceeding is under Value Added Tax on every purchases on value addition liability of tax occures. There is a liability of tax. Once the goods have been purchased on which the revenue is entitled for tax will not get the same on the issuance of sale invoice.
In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The impugned order passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur is set aside.
The revision is allowed.
The question of law is answered accordingly.
Order Date :- 7.4.2022 Puspendra