Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (12) TMI 869 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTWhether the Designated Officer at ICC can impose any penalty under section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Vat Act, 2005, for an offence committed (if any) under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? Whether, after the goods are voluntarily reported at the ICC, before exit of the goods from Punjab State, the ICC authorities are authorised to make an enquiry regarding alleged evasion of tax, which is in the domain of the Assessing Authority where penalty under section 56 can be imposed, if any offence is committed? Whether it could be said that there was an attempt to evade or avoid payment of tax by mere delayed movement of goods when the sale invoices/bills had been issued on March 26, 2007, goods were earmarked and goods receipts issued to the vehicles for their onward transmission to the consignees on the same date? Held that:- There is nothing which prevented the assessee-company from maximizing the exhaustion of its exemption limit to pay tax by March 26, 2007 provided there were genuine purchase orders and goods available for sale. The authorities, merely on account of delayed movement of goods, in the face of the explanation put forth by the assessee, and in the absence of any material on record, in our considered opinion, cannot draw the only irresistible inference that there was an attempt to evade payment of tax. The assessing authority has based its finding of attempt to evade tax simply on the basis of its presumption and suspicion. Therefore, the delayed movement of goods by itself is not sufficient to conclude that there was an attempt to evade payment of tax or the bills/sale invoices were ante-dated. Hence, the findings recorded by the Tribunal/authorities under the VAT Act are based on no evidence and are liable to be set aside. Decided in favour of assessee.
|