Back
RITU BAHRI, MANISHA BATRA
Escorts Ltd, Faridabad – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ritu Bahri, J.
The present appeal has been filed under 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'Act 2003') seeking setting aside of orders dated 12.08.1994, 23.03.1995, 13.07.2012, 31.07.2012 (A-3).
2. The case in brief is that the appellant-Company is engaged in manufacturer of motorcycle, which are sold not only with the State of Haryana but in the other States also where they have depots. The appellant- Company filed its return before the appropriate assessing authority, Faridabad for the quarter 01.04.1990 to 30.06.1990 on 31.07.1990 in which the total turnover of Inter-State Sales as per column No. 4 was shown as 30,41,65.307.88/- and the total tax payable was shown as Rs. 01,27,04,894.17/-.
3. However, during this period, a consignment of motor cycles of the appellant-company sent from Faridabad to its Gaziabad and Secundrabad depots, was checked at Sales Tax Check Barrier (STCB), Faridabad and it was found that the appellant had shown the Inter-State Sales as branch transfers with a view to evade the tax due to the State.
4. Vide order dated 15.09.1990, the Checking officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 02,14,985/- under section 9(2A) of the CENTRAL SALES TA
Penalties for false documentation under Section 7-A(2) of the AP GST Act are valid, and revisions under Section 22(1) cannot address factual disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 61 of the RVAT Act, 2003 allows for the levy of penalty in cases of active concealment and deliberate fraud or misinformation by the A....
The main legal point established is that penalty can be imposed for deliberate fraud or misinformation by the Assessee under Section 61 of the RVAT Act, 2003.
The court ruled that inadvertent errors in sales declarations do not invalidate claims for turnover deductions under the Sales Tax Act.
The filing of revised returns after the initiation of penalty proceedings lacked bona fide and did not absolve the petitioner from liability under Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
