|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1429 Records
-
2023 (12) TMI 1329
Levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) - delay of 851 days in filing the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 - main contention of the ld. A.R. is that as per section 275(1)(c) order u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act is to be passed before the expiry of financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed or 6 months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later
HELD THAT:- The assessee has filed return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 31.3.2017. There was no regular assessment and the return of income has been accepted as it is. In our opinion, copy of the return of income itself serve as an assessment order for all practical purposes. So the penalty proceedings has been initiated vide notice dated 21.12.2020, which is approximately after lapse of 45 months. Therefore, the penalty order passed by ld. AO u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act is not within reasonable time.
As considering Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 1281 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we are of the opinion that penalty order has not been passed within reasonable time. Accordingly, we quash the penalty order on this reason. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1328
Dismissal of appeal for no-prosecution - notice was sent to the appellant’s address, but returned as undelivered by the postal authority with the remark of “No Such Person” - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the records that the matter has been adjourned on previous occasions also i.e. on 29.08.2023, 29.09.2023, 30.10.2023, 24.11.2023 and is listed today i.e. 18.12.2023. On all the occasions, none appeared for the appellant nor any request for adjournment has been made. It seems that the appellant is not serious in prosecuting their appeal.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1327
Disallowance u/s 80P - assessee violated the principle of mutuality by dealing with non-members and not deducting tax at source on interest payments to nominal members - HELD THAT:- We direct the AO to examine whether the interest income received on investment with Central Co-operative Bank is out of compulsions under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and the relevant Rules. If it is so, the same may be considered as ‘business income’ and entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). If assessee society does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Act, and the Rules of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, it cannot carry on its cooperative activities, namely carry on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, if the investments are out of compulsion under the Act and relevant Rules, necessarily it is part of assessee’s business activity entailing the benefit of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
Entitlement to cost of funds with respect to interest income that is assessed as income from other sources - HELD THAT:- We find that this contention of the assessee is also covered by the order of case of M/s. Deepa Credit Cooperative Society Ltd [2023 (12) TMI 1326 - ITAT BANGALORE] The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal had followed the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., [2015 (4) TMI 829 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - we restore the matter to the AO. AO is directed to follow the dictum laid down in judicial pronouncements cited supra and take a decision in accordance with law. AO is also directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, before a decision is taken in the matter. It is ordered accordingly. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1326
Deduction u/s 80P - interest income received from co-operative banks / scheduled banks - limited prayer of the assessee before the Tribunal is to allow the interest cost as a deduction u/s 57 for earning interest income which is to be assessed under the head ‘income from other sources’ - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.[2015 (4) TMI 829 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] had categorically held that where an assessee, a co-operative society, earns interest on deposits kept with scheduled banks; only the net interest income can be taxed u/s 56 of the Act (i.e., the interest income reduced by the administrative expenses and other proportionate expenses to earn the said income).
We restore the matter to the AO. AO is directed to calculate the cost of funds for earning the interest income which has to be assessed u/s 56 of the Act and allow the same as deduction u/s 57 of the Act. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1325
Addition u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE - excess cash found from the business premises of the assessee during the survey - HELD THAT:- During statement recorded in survey the assessee clearly declared that the assessee had not made any investment in immovable property within 6 years and the entire amount of the excess cash was generated from undeclared sale of medicine. So, the source of excess cash is from business. Therefore, we are setting aside the impugned appeal order. Accordingly, the application of section 115BBE is bad in law. Hence, the assessee will be assessed related to excess cash under normal rate of tax not U/s 115BBE of the Act. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1324
Refund on export of scientific and consultancy service received from M/s. SPIL and M/s. SPARC for manufacture of final product under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2017-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - HELD THAT:- It is found that in respect of same input service in the same set of facts, in the appellant’s own case refund was allowed by this Tribunal in Pushpendra Kumar Jain and Unimed Technologies Ltd Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Vadodara-II [2020 (1) TMI 996 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that 'it cannot be correct to say that the service provided by the SPIL was not used by the appellant. The revenue’s argument is that the entire service was provided on the date of invoice is totally fallacious and illogical. Thus, we hold that the appellants received and consumed the service while they were participating in the development of technology by supervising and monitoring the same.'
From the above decision in the appellant’s own case it can be seen that the issue in the present case and the case cited above is identical. In view of above decision the issue in hand stands settled and the issue is no longer res-integra. Accordingly, following the above decision of this Tribunal in the present case impugned orders are not sustainable. Hence the same are set aside.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1323
Dishonour of Cheque - non-speaking order - requirement of speaking order to impose a condition to deposit the amount as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- In JJAMBOO BHANDARI VERSUS M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. [2023 (9) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT] the Apex Court considered the powers of the appellate court under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and held that 'When an accused applies under S.389 of the CrPC for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not.'
In the light of the above principle laid by the Apex Court, it is the duty of the Appellate court to give reason for imposing the condition to deposit 20% of compensation for suspending the sentence. There cannot be any blanket order to deposit 20% of the compensation for suspending the sentence in all cases.
When a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls within the exception or not. The appellate court while suspending a sentence cannot pass a blanket order in all cases to deposit 20% of the fine or compensation without assigning any reason. Moreover, once the court has decided to order deposit as per Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the amount of deposit ordered by the Court can be varied from the minimum 20% of the fine or compensation to a higher percent of the fine or compensation. That also shows that a speaking order is necessary. Even if the court is imposing 20% of the fine or compensation as a condition for suspending the sentence, in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra), a reason is necessary.
Thus, the Sessions court has not applied its mind before imposing 20% of the compensation amount. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case, the above order is unsustainable. Moreover, there is no order requiring the appellant to execute a bond for suspending the sentence. This court called for the remarks of the appellate court for not directing the appellant to execute bond.
The direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the trial court as per order dated 24.06.2023 in CMP No. 44/2023 in Crl.Appeal No. 109/2023 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Pala is set aside - criminal case allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1322
Seeking a direction for investigation into the affairs of the Company and those of the related parties - Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- There have been specific allegations about the irregularities stated in this application u/s 213 and the RP’s reply does not take care of any of these allegations which is with reference to the specific details and documents. There is no denial in the RP’s reply with respect to 164 Buyers listed in Page 25 onwards of CP, comprising of sale of 2,43,037 sq. ft. in total by the R-1 Company, whereas, they were entitled to ownership of only 82,216.30 sq. ft. as per the JDA. This excessive sale, three times of their entitlement by the R-1 Company, has neither been explained nor has any denial been filed. Furthermore, there has been allegation regarding the fake Lease Agreement with R-16 and R-17 to lure the Buyers with a false promise of assured rental return which was non-existent, for which, the Petitioners have also filed the specific documents for such Lease Agreements with R-16 and R-17. However, in the reply filed by RP on behalf of the R-1 Company, no explanation has been furnished about the same.
The investigation under Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013 is possible in respect of the Company which is undergoing the process of liquidation. Therefore, by exercising powers under Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013, the instant Petition deserves to be allowed.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1321
Application of Government's Litigation Policy on appeal amount threshold - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record, we find that amount involved is less than Rs. 50 Lakh. In terms of Board’s circular on Government’s Litigation Policy instruction vide F. No. 390/Misc/30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023, Revenue is not supposed to file appeal where the amount involved is not exceeding Rs. 50 Lakhs.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed in view of aforesaid Government’s Litigation Policy. Cross also stand disposed of.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1320
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - estimation of income on bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- It is admitted position that in the present case, penalty notice was issued u/s 274 r/w 271 of the Act without deleting or striking off the inapplicable part. Thus, the statutory notice issued to the Appellant does not inform the Appellant about the charge against the Appellant – whether penalty u/s 271(c) of the Act was sought to be levied for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Therefore, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained as per the judgment of Mohammed Farhan A Shaikh [2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (LB)] Further, we note that in the quantum proceedings, the AO made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. CIT(A) and thereafter, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The addition has been made in the hands of the Appellant on account of bogus purchase was on estimation basis and therefore, we hold that CIT(A) was not correct in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in the present case as the additions in the quantum proceedings were made/sustained on estimate basis.
Our view draws strength from the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has, in the case of Orient Fabritech Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (6) TMI 829 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein in identical facts and circumstances, penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted.
Thus we delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1319
Addition u/s 14A - Expenditure incurred on exempt income - whether expenditure can exceed the exempt income earned by the respondent/assessee? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the issue raised, hereinabove, is covered by the following judgments in Cheminvest Limited [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2017 (4) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] also confirmed by SC [2018 (7) TMI 567 - SC ORDER] as held that Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. No substantial question of law arises.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1318
Money Laundering - predicate offence - condition u/s 45 of PMLA satisfied or not - the revenue officials misused their official position and wrongly allocated shamlat land amongst the residents of village Seonk - HELD THAT:- In the present case, considering the custody of more than 03 months and the benefit which the petitioner took was just Rs. 50,000/-, it would be a perversity of justice if this Court continues further pre-trial incarceration. Thus, given the amount attributed to the petitioner viz-a-viz pre-trial custody and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability of further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order.
The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions - In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT], the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.
The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence - Petitioner to comply with their undertaking made in the bail petition, made before this court through counsel as reflected at the beginning of this order. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be canceled, and the victim/complainant may file any such application for the cancellation of bail, and the State shall file the said application.
Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioner understands - If the petitioner finds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1317
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - extortion of crores of Rupees from different rich people by blackmailing them to get their video footage containing objectionable and inappropriate photographs viral - conditions u/s 45 of PMLA satisfied or not - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the vital aspect of the case which is the pre trial detention of the Petitioner for near about 1 year with uncertainty prevailing about execution of NBWA against co-accused adversely affecting the commencement of the trial and, thereby, conclusion of trial being not possible in near future and regard being had to the status of the Petitioner as a woman, which puts her in the bracket of persons specified in the proviso to Sec. 45 of PMLA allowing her some relaxation in complying the rigor of provision of Section 45 of the PMLA, this Court considers that the Petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.
The bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner may be released on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1316
Money Laundering - Seeking grant of Regular bail - cheating the complainant by dishonestly inducing him in getting admission for his daughter in Post Graduation Course at Himalayan Institute and Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun - HELD THAT:- The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It is the mandate of the Legislature which is required to be followed. The non-obstante clause with which Section 45 of the Act, 2002 starts should be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to restrict the powers to grant bail.
Allegations against the present applicant are not without substance. The allegations are categorical and specific. A definite role has been assigned to the applicant. On perusal of the record, it reveals that serious and grave allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The mandate of the Parliament is that the person accused of the offence under the Act should not be released on bail unless the mandatory conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 are satisfied.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that mandatory conditions, have been satisfied. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence. The bail application is liable to be rejected.
The bail application of the applicant is rejected.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1315
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - interest earned by the co-operative society - Assessee is a cooperative society engaged in the business of extending credit facility and accepting deposits from its members, registered under Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act and has been assessed to Income-tax from year to year - HELD THAT:- We have considered the judgment passed by the coordinate bench in the case of M/s Kammavari Credit Cooperative Society Ltd [2023 (9) TMI 1468 - ITAT BANGALORE] fixed deposits were made out of the money not required by the society immediately for lending. Further that this was also not out of the money due to the members. In that view of the matter, the interest earned from such investment was attributable to the carrying out of the business of the appellant society and the judgment mentioned hereinabove in case of M/s. Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Ltd. [2015 (7) TMI 874 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The ultimate prayer was to allow the income earned by the assessee.
Thus, it appears that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and assessee is rightly allowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act by the ld.CIT(A). No reason to interfere with the orders passed by the ld.CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1314
Unexplained money u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE - Deposits in bank account by using demonetized currency notes - According to the ld. AO, the assessee has not explained the nature and source of above deposit to assessee’s bank account - HELD THAT:- Similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Bhoopalam Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (11) TMI 331 - ITAT BANGALORE] instruction dated 21/02/2017 that the assessing officer basic relevant information e.g. monthly sales summary, relevant stock register entries and bank statement to identify cases with preliminary suspicion of back dating of cash and is or fictitious sales. The instruction is also suggested some indicators for suspicion of back dating of cash else or fictitious sales where there is an abnormal jump in the cases during the period November to December 2016 as compared to earlier year. It also suggests that, abnormal jump in percentage of cash trails to on identifiable persons as compared to earlier histories will also give some indication for suspicion. Non-availability of stock or attempts to inflate stock by introducing fictitious purchases is also some indication for suspicion of fictitious sales. Transfer of deposit of cash to another account or entity, which is not in line with the earlier history. Therefore, it is important to examine whether the case of the assessee falls into any of the above parameters are not.
Thus we inclined to remit the issue in dispute to the file of ld. AO for fresh consideration to examine in the light of above order of the Tribunal. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1313
Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) - interest on investment derived by the appellant from scheduled bank and co-operative bank - HELD THAT:- As relying on The Totgars’ Cooperative Sale Society Ltd [2023 (9) TMI 150 - ITAT BANGALORE] we hold that the investment held with the co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and we direct the Ld.AO to pass orders in respect of the interest earned by the assessee from commercial banks considering under the head “Income from other sources” and to grant relief to the assessee in accordance with law u/s. 57 of the Act. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1312
TP Adjustment - interest on advances given to associated enterprises - HELD THAT:- The assessee being one of the JV partner advanced a sum which is outstanding without charging any interest. The claim of the assessee is that the amount was given in earlier years and the joint-venture is now facing a huge cash crunch due to operational losses and therefore it is not appropriate to charge any interest. The assessee also claimed that the advance has been made to the joint-venture to meet the deficit in cash flow while executing project in South Africa. It is the advance out of matter of commercial prudence to protect the business interest of the assessee in the project of the joint-venture. Assessee has also stated that there is a difference between providing advance and loan to its associated enterprises and providing advances as a business partner. It is also claimed by the assessee that the entire advances are not recoverable and therefore substantial part of those advances are written off in the financial year 2016 – 17. Therefore, no interest could be charged. The learned transfer pricing officer held that no independent party would have given such advance to any third-party and therefore the interest is required to be charged.
We find that in KEC International Ltd. Versus DCIT-5 (1) (1) , Mumbai And (Vice-Versa) [2020 (9) TMI 1101 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein as per ground number 1 transfer pricing adjustment were made on account of interest on business advances, the coordinate bench has deleted the adjustment as held that advances were more in the nature of capital contribution and by advancing the same, the assessee had protected its own business interest which is evident from the financial statements of JV. The advances were towards fulfilment of the assessee’s obligation of being a JV partner as any financial incapacitation of JV would adversely affect the continuation of the project and ultimately jeopardize the interest of the assessee. Therefore, the said advances could not be put in the category of loans as done by the lower authorities.
It could not be said that JV entity derived / gained certain benefits out of such advances but rather it was the assessee who would ultimately gain by continuing with the projects and taste the fruits of the success of project. Hence, not convinced with impugned adjustments as confirmed by first appellate authority, we direct Ld. AO to delete the same. Decided in favour of assessee.
Addition of corporate guarantee - HELD THAT:- As all financial guarantee and performance guarantee issued by the assessee are covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case wherein the guarantee fees with respect to various guarantees where the assessee has recovered the guarantee commission at the rate of 0.6% was upheld, therefore all these guarantees are continuing guarantee from the earlier years and there is no change pointed out before us in the functions, assets and risk of the parties or any change in the economic conditions, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench we confirm the order of the learned CIT – A.
With respect to the financial guarantee given to ICICI bank United Kingdom on behalf of keys the transmission LLC and KC US LLC (whole owned subsidiary of the assessee), no guarantee fee was charged, the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case has upheld the arm’s-length guarantee fees of 0.20%. As the learned departmental representative could not point out any change in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as any variation in the functions, assets and risk of the parties or change in economic conditions and further as it is a continuing guarantee from earlier years, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench we uphold the order of the learned CIT – A in benchmarking the guarantee fee income at the rate of 0.20%.
Addition on account of foreign exchange loss mark to market provided by the assessee - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- The issue is covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of this Tribunal for AY 2009-10 - In fact, the decision of learned first appellate authority for AY 2010-11 [2019 (9) TMI 437 - ITAT MUMBAI] was under challenge before this Tribunal by the revenue [2019 (9) TMI 437 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein the co-ordinate bench followed the order for AY 2009-10 and held that MTM losses on hedging contracts would be accrued losses and hence, an allowable expenditure.
Addition u/s 14 A r.w.r. 8D in computing the book profit under section 115JB - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of special bench in case of ACIT versus Vireet investments private limited [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] Even otherwise it is stated that assessee has not received any exempt income during the year and therefore there is no question of making any disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act even in the normal computation of total income and therefore the same also cannot be imputed while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the act.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1311
Validity of assessment order - no stay has been granted by the Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and on perusing the documents, it appears that the original assessment order has been challenged before the Lower Appellate Authority (LAA) and the said LAA has passed the order on 06.06.2023 remanding the matter back to the assessing officer and the assessing officer thereafter passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2023. In the meantime, the petitioner filed appeal before the CESTAT however no interim order has been passed. Since no interim order has been obtained by the petitioner, the assessing officer proceeded to pass the impugned order.
There are no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Assessing Officer, taking into consideration the decision making process on his part in passing the impugned order.
The petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1310
Levy of penalty u/s 129 (3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on goods detained - e-way bill did not contain the registration number of the vehicle transporting the goods - due to technical snag in the first vehicle (for which e-way bill was generated), the goods were transferred to second vehicle - case of appellant is that the driver of the first vehicle was ignorant of the legal requirements and therefore, did not initiate the process of generating a further e-way bill.
HELD THAT:- In the facts of the present case, e-way bill in respect of the goods transported was yet to expire when, the new vehicle had been detained. The explanation given by the appellant that, the driver of the old vehicle did not know the law and therefore did not comply with the same and did not inform the appellant about the same, should have been evaluated, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, by the Adjudicating Authority in light of the e-way bill being valid till then in respect of the first vehicle. He has to deal with the defence raised by the defaulter by a reasoned order. That is the mandate of Section 129 (3) and (4) of the Act of 2017 read together. The Adjudicating Authority has not done so. The Appellate Authority has also overlooked such fact.
Respondent has not contended that, the defence canvassed in the show cause notice and the grounds pressed in the appeal were not canvassed or pressed by the appellant at the time of hearing before the Adjudicating or the Appellate Authority.
It is found that the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority as upheld by the Appellate Authority to have violated the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as it has not spoken on the defence taken. Consequently, both the orders passed by them are set aside - Adjudicating Authority under the Act of 2017 is directed to decide on the show cause notice, in light of the reply to the show cause notice dated June 22, 2022, afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant through its authorized representative - application disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
