LI Network
Published on: December 28, 2023 at 18:26 IST
In a recent verdict, the Patna High Court has affirmed the imposition of a penalty under section 56(4)(b) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (Bihar VAT Act) due to a clerical mistake in mentioning the invoice number in the SUVIDHA Form.
The case involved M/s Ceat Ltd., a company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of tires, tubes, and flaps. The petitioner challenged a penalty order under Section 60(4)(b) read with Section 56(4)(b) of the Bihar VAT Act, which was issued after the detention of a truck carrying goods at the integrated check post in Dhobi, Gaya.
The petitioner, having a mother warehouse in Patna and branch warehouses in nearby states, argued that a stock transfer to the Ranchi warehouse was made as per the invoice produced. However, during transportation, the truck was detained, and the SUVIDHA Form had a different invoice number than the one in the lorry receipt.
Despite asserting that it was a clerical mistake, the detaining authority rejected the petitioner’s contention and imposed the maximum prescribed penalty under Section 60(4) of the Act.
The court highlighted that the documents provided by the petitioner did not sufficiently prove the genuineness of the transport, and the invoices were generated after the detention, indicating the awareness of the mistake in the invoice number.
The Court observed that there was no evidence of the last serial number of the invoice on the day the transport commenced, and the handwritten quantity in the notice was not by the authorized signatory.
Referring to Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer, the Court emphasized that mens rea (guilty mind) is not always necessary for the imposition of a penalty under Section 56(4)(b).
In the present case, the court concluded that the mistake in the invoice number provided a reasonable ground for attempting multiple transports, potentially enabling an inter-state sale of goods.
Section 60(4) empowers the seizure of goods and carriers if the transport is suspected to contravene Section 60(2). Section 60(4)(b) makes Section 56 applicable mutatis mutandis, and the penalty is imposable under Section 56(4)(b) if the person in charge of the goods fails to satisfy the officer regarding proper accounting.
The Court found no grounds to interfere with the imposed penalty and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: M/s Ceat Ltd. vs The State of Bihar & Ors
