M/S Annapurna Traders vs Commissioner Commercial Tax
2022 Latest Caselaw 1479 UK

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL

            Commercial Tax Revision No. 21 of 2013

M/s Annapurna Traders                               ..... Revisionist

                                   Versus

Commissioner Commercial Tax                         .....Respondent

Present:
      Mr. S.K. Posti, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
      Ashutosh Posti, the learned counsel for the revisionist.
      Ms. Puja Banga, the learned Standing Counsel for the
      respondent.

                     Date of hearing : 13.05.2022

Coram:        Sri S.K. Mishra, ACJ.
              Sri R.C. Khulbe, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court made the following judgment: (Per: Sri S.K.Mishra, ACJ.)

In this commercial tax revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 03.09.2013, passed by the second Appellate Authority i.e. the Commercial Tax Tribunal , Uttarakhand (Haldwani Bench) in Second Appeal No. 69 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) dated 23.08.2013.

2. The facts of the case are that the revisionist is a trader; he was importing 30.78 quintal sesame oil on 31.07.2013 by vehicle no. DL1LR-7511 from KNG Agro Food Pvt. Ltd., Sonepat, Haryana. It is further claimed that all the requisite documents, as required under the prevailing law were with the goods. Along with the goods Form no. 16, import declaration no. UK VAT- K2010-1704801, Form VAT-D3-1031732 issued by the

Commercial Tax Department, Haryana State, and different bills and transit passes which were issued by the authorities authorizing the applicant to cross the State of U.P. and trip sheet (form no. 18) dated 31.07.2013 were with the goods. The revisionist was bringing the goods for his business purposes. He was accompanied with Form No. 16 which was issued by the Assessing Authority on 08.01.2013. It is further contended that each and every column of Form No. 16, as required under the law, was duly filled by the assessee. On 31.07.2013, the goods were intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile squad) Rudrapur, and the goods were detained and detention memo was prepared for the purpose of verification. The revisionist submitted before him all the documents including Form No. 16, importing declaration and other documents. In spite of filing of such documents, the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad) issued show cause to the revisionist as to why the applicant used Form No. 16 of series no. 2010 which was held by the Commissioner as obsolete and in the transit mentioning Form No. 17. The revisionist submitted before the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad) Rudrapur that it was inadvertent mistake that the revisionist imported the goods against Form No. 16 which was declared by the Commissioner as obsolete and the mentioning of Form No. 17 in place of Form No. 16 was the mistake of cyber café where the revisionist had submitted the online declaration. However, the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 04.08.2013 seized the

goods and demanded Rs. 30,8,770.00/- as security for release of the goods.

Against that order, revisionist filed an application under Section 48(10) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, 2005 before the Dy. Commissioner (Enforcement) Commercial Tax, Haldwani, reiterating the aforesaid grounds. However, the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) Commercial Tax, Haldwani vide his order dated 23.08.2013 upheld the order of seizure but reduced the security to 20% of the goods.

Thereafter, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Haldwani, inter alia, on the ground that the revisionist was having all requisite documents as required under Rule 26C of the Uttarakhand VAT Rules, 2005. The Tribunal vide its order dated 03.09.2013 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) Commercial Tax Haldwani. Such order is assailed in this revision.

3. At the outset, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist would argue that this is a covered matter, decided by the Single Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Castrol India Limited & Anr. vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, 2012 NTN (Vol. 49)-202 wherein the Court has held as follows:-

"There is no dispute that the original Form-38 dated 27.03.2012 was submitted by the revisionist in response to the show cause notice before passing of the seizure order. The genuineness of the said Form- 38 is not being disputed. The object of issuance of

show cause notice under Section 50 (4) of the Act is to give to the party concern not only an opportunity to submit an explanation as to why the security may not be demanded but also to explain why the goods may not be seized. Therefore, if in response to such a show cause notice, the party produces necessary documents so as to remove the discrepancy, if any, found at the time of checking, the authorities are legally bound to consider the same before ordering for the seizure of the goods."

4. While passing the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad also took into consideration the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Balaji Timbers and Paints vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow 2010 NTN (43) 52.

5. In applying this principle to the present case, we see that the revisionist had duly filled up the form declaring all the goods entering in the State of Uttarakhand from Haryana through State of U.P. The only mistake he has done that he has uploaded wrong form. It is not the case of the revenue that the facts disclosed in the same form were incorrect or that the information given with an intention to evade tax.

6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the revenue in this case is that the correct form was not used and that itself will invite strict civil liability.

7. We are of the opinion that there is no intention on the part of the revisionist to evade tax, and, therefore, it will not invite any penal or strict civil liability.

8. Hence, the revision is allowed. The orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed.

(Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.) (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ.)

PV