9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1405 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImposition of Penalty - discrepancy between e-Sugam and the Invoice with respect to value and quantity of goods - Held that - The impugned order does not give rise to any question of law requiring consideration by this Court and the explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be plausible and the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error or perversity in accepting the same and setting aside the penalty in question - revision petition dismissed.
Issues:
Petitioner challenging penalty under KVAT Act for discrepancy between e-Sugam and Invoice. Analysis: The petitioner-State filed a revision petition challenging the penalty imposed on the appellant-assessee due to a minor discrepancy between e-Sugam and the Invoice regarding the value and quantity of goods. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal set aside the penalty after accepting the explanation that the discrepancy occurred due to feeding particulars before the final invoice was raised. The Tribunal exercised its discretion and deleted the penalty based on bona fide reasons provided by the appellant. The Tribunal's reasoning highlighted the difference in values between the e-Sugam and the Invoice, with the appellant explaining the discrepancy as a result of shortage of goods and actions of the consignor. The Tribunal found the explanation plausible and concluded that there was no error in setting aside the penalty. The High Court, comprising Dr. Vineet Kothari and Mrs. S. Sujatha, JJ., reviewed the case and determined that the Tribunal's decision did not raise any legal questions necessitating the Court's consideration. The Court found the appellant's explanation reasonable and upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal did not commit any error or show perversity in accepting the appellant's explanation. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the State was deemed to lack merit and was dismissed. The Court also advised the State against initiating frivolous litigation in constitutional Courts and refrained from imposing costs in this instance.
|
