TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not leviable to tax, it could not be said that person transporting goods was attempting to evade tax – Thus said principle would be applicable to current case – It was not controverted that petitioner was exempted unit – Though there was technical defect in not producing Form ST=38 but there was no attempt to evade tax – Therefore, sustaining of penalty under Section 37(6) of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 by Tribunal was unjustified – Petitions allowed – Decided in favour of Assesse. - C. W. P. No. 8689, C. W. P. No. 10940 of 2002 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 16-7-2014 - AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND JASPAL SINGH JJ. Sandeep Goyal for the petitioner. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Deputy Advocate-General Haryana, for the respondents. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner imported press moulds/S.S.plates from various foreign companies. On 27.4.2001, the petitioner company sent certain goods for the purpose of repair to M/s Sesa. For this purpose, the petitioner issued challan, Annexure P.1 as provided under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The value of the goods was estimated to be ₹ 12 lacs. The petitioner was supplied Form ST=18=A, Annexure P.2 issued by Government of Rajasthan to M/S Sesa as provided under the provisions of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The petitioner itself also issued Form ST 38, Annexure P.3 prescribed under Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (in short, the HGST Rules ) by the Government of Haryana. All these three papers were accompanying the goods when these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was exempted from payment of tax under section 13B of the HGST Act and therefore, there was no attempt to evade tax under section 37(6) of the Act. The original Form ST=38 which was to be filled by the consignee dealer of Haryana before sending it to Rajsthan was inadvertently missed as all the information was with the said dealer. It was urged that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner to evade tax in view of judgements of this Court in Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and another, (2001) 123 STC 272 and M/s Crown Gaskets (India) Bahadurgarh vs. Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Bahadurgarh, (2003) 22 PHT 413. There being no attempt to evade tax, penalty sustained by the Tribunal was unca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of not less than fifteen percent and not more than thirty percent of the value of the goods and in case, he finds otherwise, he shall order the release of the goods. If the sales and purchases made by the petitioner were not leviable to tax under the provisions of the Act, it could not be said that there had been any attempt to evade the tax due under the Act. That being so, there would be no question of imposing penalty, even minimum penalty, on the petitioner merely because at the time of checking required documents were not with the truck driver. This is especially so when it is found by the Sales Tax Tribunal itself that the petitioner had requested the officer detaining the goods to verify the documents with the material in all respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
