Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1383 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of penalty u/s Section 51 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 - unaccountal of goods or not - Pressure Cookers - the goods were voluntarily reported at ICC - goods in question were voluntarily reported on its entry into the State of Punjab at ICC and were also reported at Himachal Pradesh tax barrier while making exist from Himachal Pradesh - goods meant for trade or not - duty to carry documents - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute on the fact that there was no document accompanying the goods whereby it was evident that the appellant had made sales to purchaser in Punjab. The stand taken that there was an advance purchase order does not enhance the case of the appellant, the purchase order was not accompanying the goods. Moreover, in case the position had been so, the invoice issued by the seller would have at least mentioned that the goods to be delivered to the purchaser at Dera Bassi whereas the invoice was issued in the name of the appellant at Mumbai. The destination as per the GR was different than stated in the invoice. Even in the declaration filed at Himachal barrier, the name of the consignee given was as appellant. It would be pertinent to note that even after detention of goods, no bill/invoice issued by the appellant in favour of the purchaser was produced. It was only first time before the Tribunal that one invoice was produced. The goods were not specific goods for purchase but were general pressure cookers. The facts are self evident that the transaction between the appellant and the dealer in Punjab was without any documentation - The questions raised for challenge to the penalty are factual issues. No case is made out for interference in penalty under Section 51(7) (b). In the present case Section 51(12) could not have been invoked. The said provision comes into play only when the transporter fails to give information about the consignor or the consignee, but in the present case the documents produced at the time of checking gave the details of consignor and consignee. The penalty under Section 51(12) is quashed. Appeal allowed in part.
|