M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE highhandedness of certain officers at the Information Communication Center and their indulgence in unlawful activities has driven the petitioner to this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing notice dated 2.5.2007 (Annexure P.4) and any proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto. As an interim measure a direction has been sought to the respondents to release the goods and the truck.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for brevity 'the Haryana VAT Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the CST Act'). The petitioner has its factory at Agrosaw Complex, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt. and is engaged in the business of manufacture and trading of Seed Cleaning and Grading Machines. The petitioner sent a quotation on 20.3.2007 (Annexure P.1) to the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana with regard to supply of Agrosaw Specific Gravity Separator, Model G.I. Apart from other things, the price of the product was mentioned to be FOR Destination. The University vide its letter dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure P.2) accepted the price quoted by the petitioner and asked for supply of the machine. Accordingly, the petitioner sold the machine to the University vide invoice/bill dated 1.5.2007 (Annexure P.3) and in pursuance to Section 3 of the CST Act, the petitioner paid Central Sales Tax @ 4% as the sale was inter-state transaction. This fact is evident from the invoice dated 1.5.2007 (Annexure P.3). Accordingly, the goods were loaded in truck No. HR 07GA 0118 for delivery from Ambala to Ludhiana. When the truck loaded with goods reached ICC Shambhu (Import) barrier the agent of the petitioner produced documents for giving information and for obtaining form ST XXIV-A by generating the same from ICC. However, the goods and the truck were detained by the Excise and Taxation Officer cum Detaining Officer and notice dated 2.5.2007 (Annexure P.4) was issued. It was alleged by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner since is not registered under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity 'the Punjab VAT Act') and, therefore, has violated Section 21(1) thereof. It was also claimed that the petitioner was required to place on record proof of payment by the Punjab Agriculture University in advance. The petitioner through its Manager (Finance) appeared before respondent No. 2 namely Shri S.S. Bangar, ETO alongwith reply and relevant documents (Annexure P.5). The transaction was explained to the Excise and Taxation Officer that it was inter-state sale and Central Sales Tax has been charged as per law. It was further pointed out that the petitioner is a registered dealer in Haryana and the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana has not purchased the goods for trading. Therefore, it was urged that no violation of Section 21(1) of the Punjab VAT Act would emerge as the petitioner was not under any obligation to get it registered in Punjab. It was also claimed that the petitioner was not liable to pay any tax to the State of Punjab under the Punjab VAT Act. The goods were not even released against bank guarantee. The order has been challenged on the ground that it is beyond jurisdiction as envisaged by Section 51 of the Punjab VAT Act which is confined to cases when any one attempt to evade tax due under the Punjab VAT Act in respect of goods in transaction. It also requires to examine the documents. It has been alleged that the ETO has employed various tactics to harass the dealers who comes from outside Punjab because in order to get the goods released such dealers have to furnish bank guarantee. When the matter came up for consideration on 8.5.2007, this Court directed that the goods alongwith the vehicles be released to the petitioner on furnishing of bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Detaining Officer and that the bank guarantee was not to be encashed till further orders. The writ petition was taken up for consideration on 15.5.2007 when the learned State Counsel apprised the Court that the goods alongwith the vehicle were released on furnishing of bank guarantee which has not been encashed. He also undertook that no further orders would be passed under Section 51 of the Punjab VAT Act.
(3.) THE respondents in their joint reply filed through Shri S.S. Bangar, Excise and Taxation Officer has taken the stand that the petitioner has violated Sections 21(1) and 6(3)(a)(i) of the Punjab VAT Act which has been enforced to enhance the government revenue by plugging evasion of sales tax. It is alleged that the goods were meant for trade and the petitioner has been carrying business on FOR basis in Punjab without registration TIN (Tax Index Number). On merits, in para 3 the respondents have claimed that the sale is not inter- state sale but local sale. At the time of detention, the petitioner was still to complete the delivery of goods as it was on FOR basis. The payment of the goods was not received from the consumer. Hence, the goods were not owned by the Punjab Agriculture University. The petitioner was yet to sell the goods in Punjab and to receive the payment in Punjab itself. On the basis of the afore-mentioned features, it has been claimed that the petitioner has to be regarded as a dealer in Punjab and therefore registrable in Punjab. He is liable to pay CST in Ambala as well as in Punjab.;