9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the appellant is a dealer duly registered under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act at Indore. It is a manufacturer of suspension tubes/units and its related components. It has been regularly supplying machinery and machinery parts to Indian Railways. Tenders are being floated in the normal course of its business by Diesel Loco Modernisation Works (for short "DMW"), Patiala Railway Department for purchase of suspension bearing tubes and accessories and other components. The appellant participates in the tenders floated by DMW and supplies machinery etc. against confirmed purchase orders. It is submitted that after duly participating in the tender, the appellant received a purchase order dated 13. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipts issued by South Goods Carrier and also produced Form No. 57232 prescribed by Madhya Pradesh Government relating to Taramira. The driver also produced invoice No. 264 issued regarding transportation of the machinery by the appellant to DMW along with GR and copy of insurance policy etc. However, by making a false allegation that the driver had not produced any documents regarding transportation of the machinery by the appellant, and further alleging that the driver had not reported the goods of the appellant at the ICC while entering State of Punjab, the machineries were detained and case of appellant was forwarded to Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner for taking action under Section 51 (7) (c) of the PVAT Act. 3. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipt and other documents including the report of RITES and insurance policy. It was due to the fault of Clerk at ICC that Form VAT XXXVI could not be generated. Even otherwise non-reporting of goods at the barrier by the driver did not amount to attempt to evade tax on the part of the appellant as it was regularly supplying goods to DMW, Patiala which were capital goods and not to be sold further. The consignee was a Government undertaking. The transaction had been duly accounted for. Cryptic orders had been passed by the authorities below and the Tribunal without judicious application of mind. Penalty had been wrongly levied upon the appellant. Even otherwise, merely on the basis of admission of the driver, no penalty could be imposed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods in question were capital goods and were to be consumed by DMW which is a Govt. entity? (ii) Whether mere non-reporting of goods can be a ground for imposition of penalty though the goods were covered by proper invoice, Goods Receipt and Insurance and no other discrepancy had been pointed out at the time of detention? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty on the ground that there had been attempt to evade tax though the transaction in question could have been kept out of books of accounts? (iv) Whether tax under Section 51 (12) can be levied even though the driver produced the documents and disclosed the consignor as well as consignee and the consignor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd permission of the appellant. It was due to some ignorance that the driver of the vehicle could not generate the declaration qua these goods at ICC. The Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant had recorded a finding that the invoice No.264 dated 12.10.2013 relating to the goods in question had been recovered from driver. Undoubtedly, it is mandatory under the provisions of the PVAT Act that the carrier of the goods while entering or leaving the limits of a Punjab State will generate information about the goods at the nearest ICC which was not proved to be shown by the driver in the instant case. However, in our opinion, from this act of driver only, no interference can be drawn that the declaration was not obtained w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply order made by CRPF, goods by the assessee- Company were being transported. These goods were detained on the ground that the documents were not produced by the driver before the ICC. This Court had set aside the imposition of penalty on the ground that no attempt was made to evade tax as the driver of the vehicle was in possession of goods receipt along with the invoices. It was also held that merely on the ground that entries were not made before the ICC, penalty proceedings could not be initiated; and M/s. Balaji Trading Company, Rewari's case (Supra), wherein the assessee-Company was dealing with purchase orders from a Government of India Undertaking i.e. NAFED. The goods were detained. It was held that only on the basis of statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
