Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 1063 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImposition of penalty - Section 57(8)(ii) of VAT - Petitioner engaged in business of purchase and sales of food grains, oil seeds and edible oil etc - Tanker delivering the edible oil detained suspecting evasion of tax - Driver was made to sign the notice and same was treated to have been served upon the transporter - Held that:- the concerned authority has acted in an arbitrary manner and in fact abdicated its authority in the matter of passing of order of penalty without enquiry and without adhering to the procedure as contemplated under Section 57(8) of the VAT. It is shocking to note that order imposing penalty has been passed in a printed format by showing the amount of penalty which at no stretch of imagination can be said to be an order required to be passed under Section 57(8) of the VAT. Such highhandedness and whimsical exercise of power by the concerned authority in the matter of imposing penalty upon transporter without even serving the transporter with notice much less affording an opportunity of hearing in the enquiry required to be held is depracated. There is nothing on record in support of conclusion drawn by the authority concerned that the documents produced were prepared by the same person. Mere self styled observations without anything more on record, it cannot be said that documents produced were false and forged. Therefore, the decision of concerned authority regarding imposition of penalty is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Moreover, mere presumption that both documents are written by same person by itself do not tantamount that documents so produced were false or forged. Such slip showed consequences on the part of concerned authority, speaks volumes about vindictiveness in the matter of exercise of powers entailing penal consequences. Seeking release of tanker and amount of ₹ 1,68,679/- with interest deposited by the petitioner under coercion - Ownership of consignee - whether the goods dispatched by the petitioner/consignor while in transit, can be said to be the goods of the ownership of the consignee - Held that:- the question whether a contract for the sale of goods does or does not pass the property in the goods from the buyer to the seller must in all cases be determined by the intention of parties to the contract, nature of transactions and terms and conditions of contract. Sale of Goods Act under various chapters and provisions contained thereunder deals with different situations to answer the aforesaid question, and therefore, by figment of thought to ascertain the ownership of goods which is involved in the realm of business transaction shall always be a dangerous phenomenon. Mere dispatch of goods by the seller therefore cannot lead one to form the opinion that the buyer has become owner of the goods as has been done in the instant case. This notion formed by the concerned authority suffers from misconception, lacking common sense and de hors the provisions of Sale of Goods Act. Therefore, the goods in transit in absence of any evidence as regards terms and conditions of sale for dispatch of the goods, cannot be said to be of the ownership of the consignee. Hence, the attachment of the tanker for the aforesaid reason is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, respondents are directed to release the tanker and also refund the amount of penalty so deposited by the petitioner. - Decided in favour of petitioner
|