Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 360 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSeizure of goods – False/incomplete disclosure – Petitions challenging action of respondent-commercial taxes authorities of seizure of goods in transit and vehicles/carriers for alleged violation of Section 60(2) of Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and action of imposing penalty – Petitioners also challenges constitutional validity of Section 60(4) – Held that:- not in dispute that disclosure made by driver was not true / complete – Section 60 of amended act, 2005 empowers State Government to establish check posts to prevent evasion of tax payable – In case where driver or person in-charge of goods fails to make true and complete disclosure, such failure gives rise to presumption of intention to avoid tax – In such case, authorities concerned are enjoined to seize goods and vehicle or carrier and to impose penalty – Challenge to action of respondent authorities in seizing goods and carriers and of imposing penalty, three times tax assessed on goods, has to be rejected – Respondent authorities acted in discharge of their official duty and cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Constitutional validity of Section 60(4) and Notifications dated 4th July 2012 and 12th July 2012 – Held that:- Section 60 applies not only to goods in transit through State of Bihar, it applies to all goods which are brought in State of Bihar – Goods may have been brought for sale or use in State or goods may have been brought for passing through State – Evidently, Sections 60(3) and 60(4) Act, 2005 is invoked in case of goods which are believed to have been brought in State for sale or use in State, Article 304(b) of Constitution is not attracted – Therefore, challenge to constitutional validity of Section 60(4) rejected – Once statutory presumption of intention to sale or use of goods within State and of intention to avoid tax is raised, machinery prescribed for collection of tax is ancillary and incidental to "Taxes on sale or purchase of goods" under Entry 54 of List II of Schedule VII to Constitution – State Legislature is competent to raise legal presumption of intention to avoid tax and to legislate machinery to prevent tax evasion – Notifications have no bearing upon impugned actions of seizure of goods and vehicles/carriers and imposition of penalty by respondent authorities – Failure to publish Notification in Official Gazette will render Notification ineffective – But impugned Notifications being operational and having been operated, its validity or otherwise is of no consequence – Therefore challenge to Section 60(4) and Notification hereby rejected – Decided against petitioner.
|