Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2002 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (11) TMI 754 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Intelligence Inspector and Intelligence Officer under Section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 2. Interpretation and application of Sections 29 and 29A of the Act. 3. Validity of penalty imposition under Section 29A(4) of the Act. 4. Scope of the term "transport of goods" as per the Act and its amendments. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Intelligence Inspector and Intelligence Officer under Section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963: The Tribunal held that neither the Intelligence Inspector nor the Intelligence Officer had jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 29A(2) and impose penalty under Section 29A(4) of the Act when the goods were in the parcel office. The Government Pleader argued that under Section 29A, both authorities have the power to initiate proceedings and impose penalties until the goods are delivered to the consignee. The Court referred to the Explanation II to Section 29(2) added by the Kerala General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2000, which clarified that the transport of goods continues until delivery is taken from the carrier or bailee. 2. Interpretation and application of Sections 29 and 29A of the Act: Section 29 provides for the establishment of check-posts and inspection of goods in transit. Sub-section (2) mandates that no person shall transport goods within the State without proper documentation. Section 29A outlines the procedure for inspection of goods in transit. Sub-section (2) allows officers to detain goods if they suspect evasion of tax and require security for the release of goods. The Court noted that the power under these sections is to intercept the vehicle and goods while in transit to verify proper documentation and prevent tax evasion. 3. Validity of penalty imposition under Section 29A(4) of the Act: The Intelligence Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 64,124 on the consignor/consignee, which was upheld by the first appellate authority but overturned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not examine the merits of the penalty imposition, focusing instead on jurisdictional issues. The Court found that the Intelligence Inspector and Officer acted within their jurisdiction and justified the penalty imposition under Section 29A(4), which allows for penalties if there is an attempt to evade tax. 4. Scope of the term "transport of goods" as per the Act and its amendments: The Court clarified that the transport of goods under Sections 29 and 29A continues until the goods are delivered to the consignee. This interpretation was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Tripura Goods Transport Association v. Commissioner of Taxes and the Kerala High Court's decision in Pavithran v. Poulose. The 2000 amendment to Section 29, which added Explanation II, explicitly stated that transport commences at the time of delivery to a carrier and terminates at the time of delivery from the carrier. Conclusion: The Court set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that the provisions of Sections 29 and 29A apply to the case and that the Intelligence Inspector and Officer had jurisdiction to act under these sections. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to consider the merits of the penalty and other defects within three months. The tax revision case was disposed of accordingly.
|