Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 376 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2016 (3) TMI 376 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - TMI - Detention of goods under Punjab VAT - Levy of penalty - Section 51(7)(c) - obligation of the detaining officer is under legal obligation to allow 72 hours to the owner of the goods to prove the genuineness of the transaction before him in his office - Held that:- Concurrent findings have been recorded against the asssessee by the authorities below - the assessee had been transporting the goods without the genuine documents and the driver t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Gupta and Mr. Dharam Singh appeared on behalf of the assessee before the authorities and explained that the goods were purchased from Delhi but the documents of purchases and GR were lost in transit at Delhi. They also failed to produce the account books. Further, the documents were produced later on by the counsel for the assessee after 20 hours of detention. - Appeal dismissed - Decided against the assessee. - VATAP No.48 of 2015 (O&M) - Dated:- 23-2-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s relating to the goods produced after 20 hours of detention is not lawful when as per provisions of Section 51(7)(c) of the Act ibid, the detaining officer is under legal obligation to allow 72 hours to the owner of the goods to prove the genuineness of the transaction before him in his office? ii) Whether the VAT Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of penalty for non reporting at the ICC when in a number of cases it has been held that mere non reporting at ICC is not a good ground for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y enquiry as provided under section 51(7)(c) of the Act ibid to prove an attempt to evade tax by the appellant? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-assessee is a firm. It is engaged in the business of resale of pulses and other karyana goods at Kharar, (Punjab). It is registered under the PVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, the CST Act ). It has been filing its returns regularly with the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Haryana, the driver did not know about the ICC Banur and failed to stop the vehicle there for generation of Form VAT XXXVI. The two police officials from the ICC, Banur overtook the vehicle about half a kilometer beyond the ICC and directed the driver to take the vehicle to ICC. The Excise and Taxation Inspector on duty asked the driver to produce bill and GR pertaining to the goods under transport. The driver produced bill No.3650 dated 11.9.2008 for ₹ 5,69,200/- issued by the Delhi deale .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee alongwith the counsel appeared before the detaining officer on the said date and produced the bill and the GR in custody of the driver. Thereafter, the detaining officer forwarded the case to the ETO-cum- Designated officer for taking necessary action under section 51(7)(c) of the PVAT Act. Notice under section 51(7) of the PVAT Act was issued to the assessee for production of account books and to show cause as to why penalty under section 51(7)(c) of the PVAT Act be not imposed. According .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Joint Director (Appeals). Vide order dated 6.11.2012, Annexure A.3, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that no enquiry had been conducted by respondent No.2 before levying penalty under section 51(7)(c) of the PVAT Act. According to the assessee, the goods were detained on 12.9.2008 while the penalty was imposed on 13.9.2008 without affording any opportunity to it to produce account books and to prove the genuinene .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Concurrent findings have been recorded against the asssessee by the authorities below. After examining the evidence on record and hearing both the sides, it has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 30.3.2015, Annexure A.1 that the assessee had been transporting the goods without the genuine documents and the driver tried to escape from the ICC barrier, Banur but he was apprehended and the goods were detained. If the driver had lost the documents in transit, as alleged .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nts of purchases and GR were lost in transit at Delhi. They also failed to produce the account books. Further, the documents were produced later on by the counsel for the assessee after 20 hours of detention. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- 4. Allegedly the goods were purchased from Delhi. The documents of the purchase and GR were lost in transit at Delhi therefore not produced. The driver rather than making efforts to search the documents try to escape without stoppin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version