Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2023 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 68 - DELHI HIGH COURTOwner of goods - sale in Delhi or not - failure to furnish information regarding the receipts of the goods found at its godown - whether the Tribunal has erred in upholding the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the appellant had not produced necessary information in his possession in respect of the goods stored at the godown? - order of default assessment passed - rebuttal of presumption. HELD THAT:- The plain reading of Sub-section (9) of the Section 3 of the DVAT Act indicates that if a person who transports or holds goods in custody fails to furnish any information in respect of the goods in his possession, on being required to do so by the Commissioner, it would be presumed that he is the owner of the goods - Undisputedly, the presumption under Section 3(9) is a rebuttable presumption. Further, the said presumption would arise only if a person who is in custody of the goods fails to produce the information in his possession in respect of the goods. It is the appellant’s case that it had, in fact, produced relevant documents to show the ownership of the goods in question and therefore, no such presumption could be drawn - Admittedly, there is no dispute that at the time of inspection of the godown, the appellant’s Manager had not produced the relevant documents. However, the record indicates that the appellant had produced the relevant documents at a subsequent stage prior to the order of default assessment. There appears to be no real dispute that the appellant had done so. The appellant has produced photocopies of the documents that were filed before the VATO Enforcement at the time of the default assessment or prior, thereto. These were also produced before the Appellate Tribunal. It is material to note that Section 3(9) of the DVAT Act does not specifically provide a time-frame for submission of documents. It merely contemplates a presumption as to the ownership of the goods if the person in custody of goods fails to furnish any information in possession in respect of the goods on being required to do so by the Commissioner - It is also not disputed that the appellant’s godown and its office were located at different places and the respondents do not dispute that it was permissible for the appellant to keep the documents at its office instead of at the godown. It would be open for a person found in custody of goods to produce the relevant information in its possession in respect of the goods within a reasonable time on being required to do so by the Commissioner. The question as to what is a reasonable period of time for providing information is necessarily required to be determined in the facts of each case. In the given facts of the present case, the question is required to be answered in the affirmative; that is, in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. The appellant’s appeal is restored to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal shall consider the documents as produced by the appellant and take an informed decision on the appellant’s appeal - Appeal disposed off.
|