Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 68 (2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Punjab VAT Act") against the order of the Punjab Value Added Tax Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") dated 16.4.2009, Annexure A.18, in Appeal (VAT) No.197 of 2008-09, claiming following substantial questions of law:

i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant/assessee belonging to Haryana State has made any attempt to evade the tax under section 51 (6) (b) of Punjab VAT Act 2005, which may result in imposition of penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Act ibid?
ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the learned Tribunal that Bill and the documents, produced by the driver of the vehicle at the time of checking of the goods, can be destroyed, is patently perverse in nature as after the issuance of advance Form VAT-03 at the time of start of the movement of goods from Haryana, the entry cannot remain out of books either of the Haryana Dealer or of the purchasing Punjab dealer and therefore, there can be no attempt to evade tax under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005?
iv) Whether driver of the vehicle, after entering Punjab State, from Haryana State, voluntarily entering the Information Collection Centre, furnishing necessary papers for entry, can be held, having violated the provisions of Section 51(6) (b) of the Punjab VAT Act 2005 resulting in imposition of penalty under Section 51 (7) (c) of the Act ibid?

2. Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee is a dealer duly registered under the provisions of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the Haryana VAT Act"). It is having its Oil Solvent plant at Nilokheri in District Karnal. In the process, rice bran oil is extracted/manufactured and sold as such. The appellant has substantial turnover on account of this sale upon which necessary tax is being paid in Haryana State. In the normal course of its business, the appellant sold rice bran oil to one M/s Bathinda Chemicals Limited, Bathinda, a registered dealer under the Punjab VAT Act vide bill dated 28.1.2008 booked with Ahmedgarh Transport Co., Ludhiana for its transportation from Nilokheri to Bathinda. The statutory declaration required under the Haryana VAT Act in Form VAT D3 was also attached with the documents accompanying the goods. Once the entry is made in the books of account, there is no question of any evasion of tax in Haryana. As far as Punjab dealer is concerned, it has to issue C form obtained by him from his assessing authority in Punjab State as without it the Haryana dealer will have to pay higher rate of tax on the goods. Therefore, there can be no attempt to evade tax under the Punjab VAT Act. The goods were insured through Insurance Policy of New India Assurance Company Limited dated 28.1.2008 Annexure A.4. On its way from Nilokheri to Bathinda, the driver of the vehicle had to cross the ICC (Import) Shambhu set up by the Punjab Government under section 51 of the Punjab VAT Act. The duty of the driver is to furnish bill, goods receipt (GR) and other documents to the computer clerk who after entering the same returns all the original documents to the driver of the vehicle. Thereafter, necessary entry is made by the ETO and after clearance the police personnel posted there allow the vehicle to move out of the ICC. In the present case, the driver of the vehicle entered the ICC and a stamp was affixed on his documents to this effect. Thereafter, the papers were delivered to the concerned clerk who returned the same after its necessary perusal. When the documents were returned to the driver, he was under the bonafide impression that necessary entry had been made. He could not see if the returned papers included the declaration form generated in the computer by the Excise and Taxation officials or not. When the vehicle was in movement to its destination i.e. Bathinda, it was checked by the Excise and Taxation officer (Mobile Wing), Bathinda and a case was made out for violation of section 51(6)(b) of the Punjab VAT Act on the ground that the information had not been generated at the ICC section centre while entering Punjab State. The goods were detained on 29.1.2008 and the detaining officer issued notice for 31.3.2008. The assessee appeared before the Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO) and explained the position regarding the relevant documents. The detaining officer refused to release the goods unless the penalty was paid in cash or bank guarantee equal to 50% of the value of the goods was furnished. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (AETC) after receipt of the report issued notice to the appellant for 6.2.2008 and after examining the matter, imposed penalty amounting to ` 7,18,913/- vide order Annexure A.13. The goods were released on furnishing of bank guarantee on 1.2.2008. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority which was dismissed vide order dated 29.9.2008, Annexure A.15. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 16.4.2009, Annexure A.18, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal.