AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The Haryana Tax Tribunal (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide its order dated 1.9.2005 has referred the following question of law for adjudication by this Court:
(a) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in, accepting presentation of ST-38 Form a day after the checking as sufficient compliance of the mandatory provision of law?
(b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in accepting the rebuttal of the respondent despite contradiction between the two versions of the respondent with regard to the absence of ST 38 thereby rendering the explanation of the respondent untenable?
In the present case, during the roadside checking on 29.8.2000, vehicle No. HR-12-8841 which was loaded with crystal glass cover/stand was intercepted by ETO, Panipat at G.T. Road. The driver-cum-Incharge of the goods produced the following documents:
G.R. No. 0713 to 0715 of Doon Tempo Operator Union Baddi in which M/s Technovator Pvt. Limited Faridabad was shown consignee. The G.R. No. 0714 relating to 17 Master Package of crystal glass cover/stand worth Rs. 3,31,503/- was covered by bill No. 341 dated 28.8.2000 of M/s Jai Mata Glass Limited Tipra (Barotiwala) and other goods relating to GR No. 0713 and 0715 were covered by Bill No. 340 and 342 of the said firm was dispatched to Delhi.
Not satisfied with the aforementioned documents, the ETO asked the driver to produce ST-38 (Inward) challan for the goods transported. The driver prayed for time and ST-38 challan was produced on the following day.
The question in the present case is whether ST-38 Form could be accepted on the next date after the checking and is that be sufficient compliance of Section 37(2)(7) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act.
A perusal of proviso to Section 39(4) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act clearly shows that form ST-38 could be produced by the driver of the concerned vehicle within 24 hours of the checking. In the present case, as the driver submitted Form ST-38, therefore, that was sufficient compliance and no penalty could be imposed as there was no violation of the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act.
In view of the above, the question No. (a) is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
As far as question No. (b) is concerned, that does not survive in view of the finding that no penalty could have been levied where Form ST- 38 was submitted within 24 hours of the checking of the vehicle.
Reference is disposed of.