Budh Prakash & Brothers v. State of Haryana

HARYANA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003

--Penalty under section 31(8)--Attempt to evade the taxOmission to mention TIN of assessee-purchaser in invoice ----Where it was not the only discrepancy that TIN of assessee-purchaser was not mentioned in the invoice accompanying the goods, but also there were many other discrepancies, which would have gone unaccounted if the Checking Officer had not checked the goods, penalty under section 31(8) was rightly imposed on assessee.--Assessee challenged the imposition of penalty under section 31(8) on the ground that when the vehicle was stationery at the business premises and the goods were being unloaded and were partly unloaded, section 31 relating to inspection of goods in transit was not applicable. Revenue contended that as the TIN of assessee-purchaser was not mentioned in the invoice accompanying the goods and the vehicle did not cross toll plaza, Palwal on the way, penalty was rightly imposed on assessee. Held: If the goods are in the process of being unloaded and some goods are still left in the vehicle, section 31 is applicable to such a case. Omission to mention TIN of the assessee-purchaser in the invoice is also a serious discrepancy because even complete address of the assessee was not mentioned in the invoice and in its absence, identity of purchaser could not be traced. Further, purchase of cement from a distant place Punhana despite availability of cement adjacent to the premises of assessee in Faridabad shows that transaction was not genuine. Also, as perusal of bill in the bill book and the bill accompanying the goods revealed various discrepancies, penalty under section 31(8) was rightly imposed on assessee.