DASU RAM NAUTAN DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
LAWS(P&H)-2008-8-167
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 25,2008

Dasu Ram Nautan Dass Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ajay Tewari, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed on the following question of law:
(2.) WHETHER order of learned Tribunal upholding the levy of penalty under Section 56 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 is sustainable in the eyes of law, when the assessee has not actually availed of the said benefit, no demand is due from assessee on that account and there can be no mens rea in the circumstances of the case? 2. By order dated July 4, 2006, whereby the Excise and Taxation Commissioner -cum -Designated Officer, Patiala, imposed a penalty under Section 56 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Punjab VAT Act"), on the ground that the dealer (appellant) had availed of wrong input -tax credit and therefore, had to be penalised. By order dated September 25, 2006, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Patiala Division, Patiala, dismissed the appeal, and by order dated January 29, 2007, the VAT Tribunal dismissed the second appeal. The appellant is a dealer, registered under the Punjab VAT Act, and was also a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the PGST Act"). On the coming into force of the Punjab VAT Act, all dealers like the appellant, who had any stock of goods on which tax had already been paid under Section 5(1) or 5(3) of the PGST Act, were entitled to claim input -tax credit on such stock held on April 1, 2005 under Section 14 of the Punjab VAT Act. Admittedly, the appellant was entitled to a credit of Rs. 55,368 on account of tax -paid stocks (under the PGST Act), which it held on the appointed day, viz., April 1, 2005. The credit of this amount of Rs. 55,368 could be claimed in three instalments over the entire year.
(3.) APART from this, the appellant was entitled to input -tax credit amounting to Rs. 46,680 (brought forward from previous year) and Rs. 4,08,296 on non -capital goods against an amount of Rs. 3,88,736 due as output tax. Thus, on these accounts alone, the appellant was not liable to pay any tax, as the credit in its account was more than the tax payable.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.