CTR/5/2014
2022 Latest Caselaw 1483 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL

                      SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.
                                  AND
                       SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

13TH MAY, 2022

COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION No. 05 OF 2014

Between:

M/s Devbhumi Enterprises.

...Revisionist

and

Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Dehradun.

...Respondent

Counsel for the revisionist. : Mr. S.K. Posti, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Posti, the learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent. : Ms. Puja Banga, the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)

By filing this Commercial Tax Revision, the

revisionist has assailed the order passed by the learned

Commercial Tax Tribunal, Haldwani Bench in Second

Appeal No. 51 of 2013 on 08.01.2014, thereby dismissing

the Appeal of the revisionist challenging the imposition of

penalty in the year 2011-12, and order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the learned Joint Commissioner (Appeals)-I,

Commercial Tax, Haldwani in Appeal No. 568 of 2012.

2. The facts of the case are as follows :-

The revisionist is a trader. He imported some

used and old GI drums, 1080 K.G. menthol and 4140 Kg.

DMO on 22.02.2012 from M/s Kapil Menthol and Allied

Products, Rampur. The total value of the consignment

was Rs. 53,60,304.00 only, which was transported by

Truck No. UK-04CA/0254. The said consignment was

stopped by the officers of the respondents. At that time,

the driver of the Truck could not produce any document.

Hence, the goods were detained and a show cause notice

was issued to the driver. The revisionist submitted his

reply to the show cause notice and produced all the

relevant documents before the authorities. However, the

detaining officer did not accept the documents of the

revisionist, and passed the order of seizure on

24.02.2012 under Section 43 of the Uttarakhand Value

Added Tax Act, 2005 requiring him to deposit a sum of

Rs. 22,25,000/- as security for release of the

consignment. The revisionist deposited the demanded

amount. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a show

cause notice to the revisionist for initiation of penalty

proceedings under Section 58(1)(xix) of the aforesaid

Act. The revisionist submitted his reply to the show

cause notice, but the Assessing Officer did not accept the

reply to the show cause notice of the revisionist and

passed an order imposing the penalty of Rs. 22,25,000/-

on 04.05.2012. The assessee preferred an appeal to the

First Appellate Authority and then to the learned Tribunal

as mentioned in the first paragraph of this order. The

Tribunal did not accept the contentions raised by the

assessee and held that they are liable for the penalty.

3. In a similar case in Castrol India Limited and

Another v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax; 2012

NTN (Vol. 49)-202, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

has come to the conclusion that if at the time of seizure,

the assessee does not produce the documents, but

produces the same after receiving the show cause notice,

then it cannot be held to be an act for evasion of tax.

4. The genuineness of the documents is not

disputed. Therefore, we are of the opinion, by following

the aforesaid judgment, that as the assessee has filed all

the documents after receiving the show-cause notice, and

it is not the case of the revenue that the documents were

not genuine, or that the assessee has not reflected all the

goods that were to be transported in all the forms and

tax has been deposited, then the order of seizure of

goods and demand of security was not justified.

5. In that view of the matter, this Revision is,

hereby, allowed. The orders passed by the Assessing

Officer dated 24.02.2012 and confirmed by the First

Appellate Authority by its order dated 14.05.2012 and

also confirmed by the Second Appellate Authority by

order dated 30.03.2013 are, hereby, set-aside. The

order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 08.01.2014 is

also set-aside. It is held that the petitioner is not liable

to pay any tax on it.

6. In sequel thereto, all pending applications

stand disposed of.

7. Urgent copy of this order be supplied to the

learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.

________________ S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

_____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

Dt: 13th May, 2022 Rahul