INDIAN INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT LTD. Vs. CHECK-POST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal shall also govern disposal of Writ Appeal Nos. 10,11,12,13 and 14 of 2006. All these appeals have been filed against the common order passed on April 12, 2006 by the learned single judge in Writ Petition Nos. 929, 930, 931, 932, 933 and 934 of 20061 between the same parties.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the petitioner is a registered company, dealing in leasing out equipment and machinery on rental basis. The petitioner contended before the authorities that it purchased earth moving equipments, namely, JCB backhoe loaders, in Jaipur and after obtaining temporary registration certificate from the R. T. O., Jaipur, despatched the JCBs from Rajasthan to Harda, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, through transporter, respondent No. 3, Truck Operators' Union. On September 23, 2005 the trucks carrying JCBs were checked at the border check -post, Dhabla -Jodi, Khilchipur, in District Rajgarh (M. P.). The Check -post Officer found that the documents in relation to the JCBs were not in order and, therefore, issued the prescribed show cause notice for payment of tax together with penalty under the provisions of the M. P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). The petitioner appeared before the Check -post Officer and represented to him that the machines were being sent to Harda in Madhya Pradesh, on rental basis and not for sale and, therefore, there was no case of evasion of tax. The Check -post Officer, however, did not accept the petitioner's contention and vide order dated October 22, 2005, he imposed the penalty in respect of each JCB detained at the check -post. The petitioner challenged these orders before the Commissioner, under Section 62 of the Act, but the revision was dismissed. It was in this context that the petitioner challenged the orders dated January 23, 2006 and October 22, 2005 and the demand made vide notice dated October 23, 2005. The learned single judge observed that in the absence of the documents, the Check -post Officer rightly initiated action provided under the law and passed the orders impugned and raised the demand. The transporters were given adequate opportunity to dislodge the presumption that no attempt was made to facilitate evasion of the tax and the petitioner had not only a chance before the revenue authority but also before the revisional authority, by virtue of the order of the court in the earlier round of litigation and dismissed the petition. It is against this dismissal that the above appeals have been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to Section 45A of the Act, especially to Sub -section (4) thereof in support of his contention that it is only in relation to the notified goods that the provision is attracted. His contention is that since admittedly JCBs have not been notified as the goods to which Section 45A of the Act applies, the action of the respondents in seizing the goods and subjecting the goods to penalty is illegal and highhanded. For convenience Section 45A(1), (4) and (7) are reproduced hereunder: