S/S Ranchi Carrying Corporation vs Commissioner, Commercial Tax

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Goods during the course of transportation were seized, and its release made conditional upon deposit of amount, since at the time vehicle was intercepted by the mobile squad, the details of purchaser and seller, who were situated in other States, were not found to be registered and their TIN number was found wrong at the website concerned. The assessee has filed an appeal in which the tribunal has reduced the liability and directed deposit of only 40% of the disputed amount i.e. Rs.2,63,040/-. Aggrieved by the condition imposed for release of goods, the dealer has filed the present revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in M/s Om Enterprises and another v. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow, delivered in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.777 of 2013, dated 23.10.2013, in which it is held that existence of consignor or consignee or their registration with the trade tax authorities is not relevant for the purposes of seizing the goods in transit. It has further been held that the object of providing the transit declaration form is to ensure that the goods which enters passes out of the State and is not sold within the State and that there is no evasion of trade tax. Learned counsel further submits that the goods had virtually reached the exit point and in such circumstances, the orders are illegal.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has invited attention of the Court to the order of the tribunal, which clearly records that the entire transaction was sham. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that it is a settled principle of law that fraud vitiates all. It is also contended that the question as to whether ultimately any penalty proceedings ought to be drawn in the matter or not would be a factor to be gone into by the authority at appropriate stage, and the appellate authority or this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in returning a finding to the effect that no penalty proceedings at all can be initiated. Submission is that interest of revenue too is required to be protected.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, I am of the opinion that where prima facie the very transaction of sale is doubted for the reason that description of purchaser and seller does not match with the records, and the details furnished relates to some other person, this Court would not be justified in holding that proceedings for penalty cannot be initiated at all. The interest of the assessee can always be protected, but the interest of revenue has also to be safeguarded. Although the observations in M/s Om Enterprises (supra) apparently supports the contention advanced on behalf of the revisionist, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the transaction of sale itself is doubted for the reasons recorded in the order of the tribunal, and therefore, this Court would not be justified in holding at this stage that no penalty proceedings can be initiated. These are aspects which are to be gone into at appropriate stage, and no final opinion can be expressed at this stage.

However, considering the observations made in M/s Om Enterprises (supra), it would be appropriate to provide that in case the assessee furnishes an indemnity bond for the amount demanded under the orders of the tribunal, the goods would be released without insisting upon any further deposit of amount, subject to the proceedings that may be drawn in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this revision stands disposed of.