Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2023 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 382 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURTLevy of penalty under Section 58 (XIX) of VAT Act - existence of mens rea or not - suppression of value of goods - it is alleged that the declaration form produced by the assessee did not bear the seal and the original and duplicate copies of the declaration forms also bore different signatures of the seller - HELD THAT:- The submission of Mr. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the State, that the value of the goods being transported was declared to be only Rs. 05 lakhs, whereas the actual valuation of the goods was to the tune of Rs. 16.38 lakhs, is not borne out from the records. In fact, the order under Section 58(XIX), passed by the Deputy Commissioner itself records that the value of the consignment was declared at Rs. 16,38,324/-. The submission of Mr. Maulekhi founded upon the factual finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Tax) in the order imposing penalty under Section 58(XIX) to the effect that declaration form produced by the revisionist-assessee did not bear the seal, and that the original and duplicate copies of the declaration form also bears different signatures of the seller, also does not appear to be correct. We may observe that the same finding was also returned by the First Appellate Authority. There is absolutely nothing to show that there is any discrepancy in the original and the duplicate copy of the Form 16 declaration, placed on record. The said declaration forms bear the same signature of Sri Ram Krishna for Brij Lal and sons, the revisionist. Even the signatures of the seller appear to be the same to the naked eye. Both the copies also bear the seal of Brij Lal and sons, as also the official seal. Counsel for the respondent has also not been able to point out any difference in the two copies of the form. There are merit in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist that since the aspect of the trip sheet not disclosing goods covered by the three bills in question, namely, bill Nos. 863, 864 and 865 was not mentioned in the show cause notice, the same cannot be made basis for imposing penalty - Considering the fact that this was a first such instance, as also the fact that the revisionist had produced the declaration from in Form 16 without any delay along with its reply to the show cause notice, the revisionist had rebutted the statutory presumption raised by Section 65 of the Act. Petition allowed.
|