AERO CLUB Vs. COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES, DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ("DVAT Act") against an order dated 13th June 2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, Delhi ('Tribunal') by a majority of 2:1 whereby the appeal of the Appellant was dismissed.

(2.) The background to the present appeal is that the Appellant is a registered dealer of Ward-42/KDU, dealing with footwear and readymade garments under the brand name "Woodland". Certain goods were imported from China in 404 cartons. They were cleared by the Customs Department on 28th July 2011. The consignment was further transported on that day i.e. 28th July 2011 from the Airport Cargo warehouse in two tempo vehicles bearing registration Nos. DL 1LM 2175 and DL IM 3534. The relevant documents pertaining to the consignment was with the driver of the tempo bearing registration No. DL 1LM 2175. Although both tempos were initially travelling together, the tempo bearing registration No. DL 1LM 3534 got separated and was intercepted by the Value Added Tax Officer (VATO) (Enforcement-II). The VATO, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Sharma, issued a 'Mal Roko Aadesh' i.e. an impounding order under Sections 59/61 of the DVAT and recorded the reason for doing so as: "Goods without Bill". The person to whom the goods belonged was asked to appear before the VATO along with the driver within seven days. At the same time the statement of the driver of the temp, Mr. Dheeraj, was recorded in which he stated that he was unable to produce the required documents in respect of the said goods. In this statement too the same reason was indicated viz., "Goods without Bill".

(3.) A letter was addressed by the Appellant to the VATO on 29th July 2011 by the Appellant in reply to the impounding order. It was stated inter alia that the goods were loaded in two tempos and that the necessary documents such as bill of entry etc. were with one of the two vehicles. It was explained that although the two vehicles were running together, the one which was not carrying the documents got separated and was intercepted by the VATO. Along with the letter, the Appellant enclosed the documents of import, registration certificate etc.