Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2009 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (10) TMI 885 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxInterpretation of statute - Section 50 of the VAT Act - Penalty on firm u/s 54 (1) of the UPVAT Act, 2008 - incomplete Form 38 - Held that: - the Division Bench decision in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., Ghaziabad and others vs. State of U.P. and others [1983 (1) TMI 226 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] still holds the field and is relevant for the interpretation of Section 50 of the VAT Act - The language of Sections 28-A (6) and 50 (4) is synonymous. There is absolutely no difference in the language. The interpretation of Section 28-A read with Section 28-A (6) given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Jain Shudh Vanaspati is applicable to the interpretation of Section 50 read with Section 50 (4) - Thus, for the detention/seizure of the goods under Section 50 read with Section 50 (4) and 50(5), a case of an attempt to evade the tax and an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under this Act has to be made out as a condition precedent. Before imposing penalty the authority has to give notice under Section 54 (1) and to record a finding either on the basis of material before it, or produced by the dealer, or any other person, or the department and which may include incomplete Form 38, (which may be a ground for seizure of the goods), that there was an intention to evade the payment of tax - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|