- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the State Act") against the order dated July 17, 2012, annexure A4, passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal at Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal"), claiming following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, annexure A1, was right in upholding the order of AETO charging tax and imposing penalty under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 whereas the transaction admitted was taking place in the course of inter-State trade and commerce? (ii) Whether the order passed by the authorities below is not illegal by holding the transaction as inter-State trade and commerce in summary transaction and rejecting the plea of the appellant that these are sale in transit? (iii) Whether the order passed by the authorities below is not illegal in absence of finding of attempt to evade tax? (iv) Whether the initiation of proceedings itself is not wrong when there is no reason but mentioned in the detention notice that 'detected carrying aluminium ingots from Faridabad to Bhiwadi (Raj.). Failed to provide the proof of goods tax. The goods detained under section 31(6) of the VAT Act transaction needs verification?' (v) Whether the goods can be detained under section 31(6) for mere verification? A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as, narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-concern is a dealer registered with the Department of Sales Tax under the State Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the Central Act"). It is engaged in the trading of aluminum ingots in the State of Haryana. It is filing prescribed quarterly returns and discharging tax obligations in accordance therewith. It is also making sale in transit, as allowed under section 6(2) of the Central Act where subsequent sale is exempt from payment of tax. Goods of the appellant along with truck No. HR 47-8777 were detained and notice under section 31(6) of the State Act was issued by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (AETC), Mewat, alleging "detected carrying aluminum ingots from Faridabad to Bhiwadi (Raj) (II). Failed to produce the proof of goods tax. Goods detained under section 31(6) of the VAT Act/transaction needs verification". According to the appellant, there was no reason assigned for detention of goods under section 31(6) of the State Act but the goods were detained as the driver failed to produce the proof of goods tax. The appellant avers that under section 31(6) of the State Act, for mere verification of transaction, goods cannot be detained until and unless some reason is assigned for alleged attempt to evade tax due to the State. The appellant submitted before the detaining officer that the goods in question were purchased from M/s. Bharat Aluminum Co. limited, Korba (CG) and were sold to M/s. Sant Aluminum P. Limited, Bhiwadi (Raj), by endorsing the document of title to the goods. Thus the transaction fell under the provisions of section 6(2) of the Central Act. Since subsequent sales are exempt from sales tax, there cannot be any attempt to evade tax due to the State of Haryana as there is no tax of the State of Haryana involved. All the necessary documents were accompanying the goods but the same were not considered by the detaining officer. The AETC vide order dated December 20, 2007, annexure A1, levied tax and imposed penalty under the State Act. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated April 29, 2010, annexure A2. Still not satisfied, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated July 17, 2012, annexure A4, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by the appellant.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no opportunity of cross-examination of the driver was allowed and in that eventuality, no liability could be fastened merely on the basis of the statement of the driver of the vehicle. It was also submitted that it was inter-State sales and thus there was no attempt to evade tax within the State of Haryana and thus no penalty under section 31 of the Act could be levied.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal.;