LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-112

MAKIN PAPER MILLS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 29, 2006
Makin Paper Mills Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against show cause notices dated 24.9.2005 (Annexure P-1) and 27.9.2005 (Annexure P-3) and further proceedings taken in pursuant thereto.

(2.) CASE set out in the petition is that the petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short "the State Act") and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 at Ludhiana. It is engaged in manufacturing of paper and allied items. On 23.9.2005, the petitioner sold a consignment of paper to a Delhi dealer and goods were loaded on Truck No. HR- 38L-2685. In transit, the consignment was intrcepted and detained on 24.9.2005 by respondent No. 2, the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assistant Director (Investigation), Patiala under Section 51(6)(a)(b) read with explanation under Section 51(7)(d) of the Act and show cause notice Annexure P-1 was issued proposing to levy penalty for evading tax on the ground that the petitioner had given wrong description of goods in the bill. The petitioner gave reply and relied upon RG-1 Register maintained under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. He submitted that consignment carried correct description being 'paper' on which 1% C.S.T. was leviable as against the same being 'cardboard' as suggested by the detaining authority attracting rate of tax @ 4%. Another consignment was detained on 27.9.2005 in respect of which show cause notice Annexure P-3 was given to the petitioner on the same ground. The petitioner submitted reply on 30.9.2005. Two consignments of the petitioner were released on bank guarantee and the matter was pending before the Check Post Officer.

(3.) IN reply, apart from raising an objection to the entertainment of the petition at the stage of notice in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siliguri Municipality and others v. Amalender Dass and others, 1984(146) ITR 624; Union of India and others v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. and others, 1985(154) ITR 135 and P. Radhakrishan Naidu v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, 1977(1) SCC 561. It is further stated that the goods comprised in the consignment being card board, higher rate of tax was attracted and since the petitioner was transporting the goods by misdescription of card board as paper, attempt to evade was patent.