TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 related to only 30 monitors. It has been further recorded by the Tribunal that while preparing VAT XXVIA of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Himachal Pradesh, the assessee furnished the information to the Excise and Taxation Department, Himachal Pradesh that there were only 30 monitors - It was concluded by the Tribunal that there was intention to evade the tax on the part of the assessee. With regard to penalty under Section 51(12) of the PVAT Act, it was recorded that since the transporters had disclosed the information regarding the consignor and consignee of the goods, therefore, no offence under Section 51(12) of the PVAT Act was made out. Consequently, penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of PVAT Act was imposed to the tune of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantity of goods? 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-assessee, is engaged in the business of manufacturing of medical equipments at Baddi which are sold to various dealers all over India. In the normal course of its business, the assessee sent multipara monitors to M/s Allengers Medical System, Derabassi vide receipts dated 09.07.2013, Annexure A1 to A5. Thereafter, the assessee got order for another 25 monitors for which an invoice dated 09.07.2013 was issued. According to the assessee, as the order was received from the consignee after the loading of goods, its accountant had already left the office by that time. Invoice No. GB SAC 00157 was g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer had imposed tax under Section 51(12) of the PVAT Act despite the fact that names of the consignor and consignee were duly available with him. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Joint Director (Investigation), Patiala, contending that there was no attempt to evade the tax as the goods had been voluntarily reported at the barrier. The imposition of tax under Section 51(12) of the PVAT Act was also challenged. Vide order dated 14.08.2015, Annexure A.7, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant-assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal alongwith application for condonation of delay. The said appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 2.05.2017, Annexure A.9 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AM on 10.07.2013, yet the VAT invoice No. 00157 dated 09.07.2013 was produced at 3:00 PM on 10.07.2013. Thus, it was inferred that the said invoice was issued after the excess goods were detained. It was concluded by the Tribunal that there was intention to evade the tax on the part of the assessee. With regard to penalty under Section 51(12) of the PVAT Act, it was recorded that since the transporters had disclosed the information regarding the consignor and consignee of the goods, therefore, no offence under Section 51(12) of the PVAT Act was made out. Consequently, penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of PVAT Act was imposed to the tune of ₹ 7,87,500/-. The relevant paras of the order passed by the Tribunal read thus:- There is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , inference would be drawn that this invoice was issued after the excess goods were detained. Had the appellant been in possession of the invoice No. 00157 relating to 25 multipara monitors at that time, then he would have generated the same in VAT-XXVI-A prepared by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Himachal Pradesh. Thus, guilty intention to evade the tax on the part of the appellant is apparent. Now coming to the penalty under Section 51(12) of the Act since the transporter had disclosed the information regarding the consignor and the consignee of the goods, therefore, no offence under Section 51(12) is made out. Now coming to the penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Act, the said provision provides for the penalty equal to 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 16 of 2012 decided on 03.12.2013, the issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty under Section 51(7)(b) of the PVAT Act merely on account of clerical mistake in the documents which were produced voluntarily at ICC without establishing any attempt to evade the tax. After examining the matter, the explanation furnished by the appellant was held to be bonafide. Similarly, in M/s Balaji Trading Company, Rewari Vs. The State of Haryana and another, 2016 SCC online P H 4741, the issue was with regard to recording a finding by the Tribunal about the genuiness of the documents accompanying the goods. In Amrit Banaspati Company Limited Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2001) 122 STC 323, vires of Section 14-B of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
