MITTAL OVERSEAS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dealer -petitioner has filed the instant petition under section 22(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, "the PGST Act") for issuance of direction to the Punjab VAT Tribunal, Chandigarh -respondent No. 3 (for brevity, "the Tribunal") to state the case and refer the questions of law emerging from its order dated August 11, 2003 (P6) passed in Appeal No. 263 of 2000 -01. Brief facts of the case are that the dealer -petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 at Panipat in the State of Haryana. It is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of jute/HDPE bardana, which is used in packing of rice. On January 16, 1999, the dealer -petitioner made sale of bardana to a Calcutta firm, namely, V. K. Udyog Ltd., which was to be delivered at the factory premises of M/s. Bhagwati Rice Mills, Ferozepur, in the State of Punjab. On January 16, 1999 itself, the dealer -petitioner made another transaction in favour of S.N.T. Agro Industries Ltd., Delhi, and the goods were to be delivered at the premises of M/s. Shiva Rice Mills, Rampura Phul in the State of Punjab.

(2.) ON January 17, 1999, the vehicle and goods were detained by the Assistant Director (Enforcement) Punjab, under section 14B(6) of the PGST Act on the premise that the Goods Receipt (GR) was not accompanying the documents. On January 18, 1999, the Deputy Director (Enforcement) imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,000 under section 14B of the PGST Act by arriving at a conclusion that the there was an attempt to evade tax (P3). The dealer -petitioner filed an appeal under section 20(1) of the PGST Act before the Joint Director (Enforcement), Patiala Division, Patiala. The Appellate Authority has recorded a categoric finding that no bill book or any other cogent evidence was produced to prove that sale bill was issued out of regular bill book. The dealer -petitioner also failed to produce original documents. At the time of checking the goods were not covered by trip sheet, log book or goods receipt and documents in favour of the Punjab parties. The appellate authority, accordingly dismissed the appeal while reducing the penalty to Rs. 55,000, vide order dated April 4, 1999 (P4). The dealer -petitioner thereafter filed further appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated August 11, 2003 (P6).

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and perusing the paper books with their able assistance, we are of the considered view that the facts are absolutely clear and there is no finding recorded by any of the Revenue authorities that the dealer -petitioner was under obligation to pay sales tax. Once, there is no determination of such nature then the question of evasion would also be a subject -matter of dispute. Therefore, we are of the view that the aforesaid two questions of law would arise for determination of this court. Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to refer the aforesaid two questions of law for opinion of this court after drawing statement of facts, attaching copies of all the orders. The paper book should be computer printed as per the provisions of law. The instant petition stands disposed of in the above terms.