U/s. 51(7), penalty was levied for an attempt to evade tax. Vehicle loaded with M. S. Bar was detained, statement of driver recorded who stated that goods were loaded from the premises of A. B. Steel mills, but no such invoice was produced to authenticate the transaction. Appellant’s explanation on the other hand appears to be manipulated one as he did not produce any such invoice on 1-3-2007 or thereafter till the case remain pending with the detaining officer up to 9-3-2007. Detailed enquiry proved that the bill was not in existence and it was clearly an attempt to evade tax on the goods loaded. Therefore, penalty levied u/s. 51(7) was confirmed by the Tribunal.

Sahib Steel Industries v. State of Punjab (2015) 52 PHT 104 (PVT)


At the outset the PVAT Tribunal clarified the distinction of branch transfer and transfer of goods by way of consignment. Where branch transfer is the transfer to one’s own company having same constitution and whereas consignment transfer is transfer to the consignee agent, who sells goods of appellant in terms of the written agreement and deposits the tax. Thereafter, the Tribunal analysed the facts of the appellant’s case dealing in pharmaceutical products. Firm had two TIN Nos. one at Zirakpur and other at Jalandhar, both in the State of Punjab. For transferring goods at Jalandhar office, claim of stock transfer to branch at Jalandhar was denied. Dept. contended that on sale of goods at Jalandhar office, VAT was liable to be collected and paid. That was how, the question arose for the consideration of the Tribunal. The Tribunal on perusal of the record and hearing of arguments noticed that sufficient evidence was missing in the case. There was no evidence on the record that whether TIN No. was issued twice to the Company as per rules as well as the consent of the Govt., there was also nothing to show that both offices were working under the same constitution. The appellant had not placed on record, the account books in order to show that ITC had not been claimed twice. In the circumstances, the appeal was accepted but remitted back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to allow the appellant to lead evidence in his favour and thereafter decide the matter on merit.

Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Zirakpur v. State of Punjab (2015) 52 PHT 407 (PVT)


PVAT Act, Section 64 regarding communication of Order. There was a delay of 124 days in filing appeal seeking condonation of delay. Appellant was subjected to levy of penalty u/s .51(7)(c) for attempt to evade tax. On fact, it was noticed that the delay in filing the appeal against the Order pronounced in front of the Counsel of the appellant. Therefore, argument that no intimation of dismissal of appeal was granted was not sustainable on the ground that negligence caused by the appellant appears to be the result of carelessness and casual approach of the Counsel. Hence, the delay was not condoned and consequently the appeal was dismissed.

Connel Bros. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab (2015) 52 PHT 374 (PVT)


In the present case, after analysing facts and circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant was making misuse of process of law thereby seeking condonation of delay of four years in filing the appeals. Therefore, outright the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

Satpal Surinder Kumar, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab (2015) 52 PHT 392 (PVT)


A. Because of technical defects in Forms ‘C’ and ‘F’, Tribunal allowed the appellant to produce the same before the Assessing Authority and remanded the case for its fresh assessment.

Aggarwal Agencies v. State of Punjab (2015) 52 PHT 420 (PVT)

B. Non-submission of ‘C’ forms, assessment was made charging higher rate of tax and reasonable opportunity of being heard was not given to the appellant. In the circumstances, the High Court held that the Order passed by the Assessing Authority was in violation of principle of natural justice and the assessment order was quashed and matter remitted back for fresh assessment on the point.

ABB India Ltd. v. Dy. C.C.T. Bengaluru 2015-16 (20) KCTJ 103 (KHC)


Rate of CST reduced to 1% up to 31-3-2009 by Himachal State Govt. by Notification dt. 31-12-2004. Subsequently, Govt. decided to extend this period up to 31-3-2013 or till he Central Govt. reduced the rate of CST to 1% whichever was earlier. The Finance Dept. of the State Govt. approved this proposal, and the note prepared on 19-5-2009 in this regard was approved by Council of Ministers also. On that basis a notification was issued by Industries Dept. on 29-5-2009 to amend earlier Notification dt. 30-12-2004 issued in terms of Industrial Policy, 2004. However, the Excise and Taxation Dept. of the State Govt. issued Notification u/s. 8(5)(b) of CST Act, on 18-6-2009 and use the words “…..with immediate effect”. Due to use of these words, the benefit of reduced rate of 1% was not allowed to the appellant-assessee for the period 1-4-2009 to 17-6-2009. The matter was carried to Supreme Court which held that the State Govt. could not speak in two voices. Once the Cabinet took a policy decision to extend CST concessions up to 31-3-2013, and Notification dt. 29-5-2009 was issued by the Dept. of Industries, thereafter, the Excise and Taxation Dept. could not have taken a different stand. What was given by the right hand, could not be taken back by the left hand. The Govt. shall speak only in one voice. The State Govt. is bound by the policy decision taken by the Council of Ministers duly notified by the Dept. of Industries. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Lloyd Electric & Engg. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (2015) 27 STJ 787 (SC)


U/s. 2(15) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006, where a bank registered as a dealer and which holds hypothecated vehicles in its name, would be a dealer within the definition of the expression u/s. 2(15) of the Act, merely because the bank seizes and repossesses the hypothecated vehicles and brought it to sale through public action, was a dealer? Held, in the affirmative, by referring to the Apex Court Judgment in Federal Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007) 6 VST 736 (SC) and ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur (2007) 2 SCC 711 (SC).

HDFC Bank Ltd., Chennai-4 v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015-16) 21 TNCTJ 143 (Mad.)

Comments are closed.