9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Tax Officer, in-charge of the Sales Tax Check Post, Kumarapatnam near Harihar, on 20th May, 1978. The truck was being driven by one Iqbal Singh and the truck contained 700 cartons of Golden Eagle Beer. The driver was called to the check post and was asked to produce documents in respect of the goods. Since the driver did not produce the bill of sale or a delivery note, though he tendered some documents which were with him, a notice was issued to him under section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, calling upon him to produce proper documents within a reasonable time or else a penalty of Rs. 12,000 would be levied for the alleged contravention of the provisions of section 28A(2) of the Act. The required documents were not prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing on the question are: Section 20 of the Act and rule 28(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules coupled with form 15. Section 20 provides for appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). Sub-section (4) of section 20 provides that the appeals shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. 7.. Rule 28(2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Rules states that an appeal shall be in form 15 and verified in the manner specified therein. Form 15 contains the particulars to be furnished in the memorandum of appeal. Note (1) thereunder is in the following terms: "The appeal should be accompanied by the order appealed against in orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 22nd May, 1978, and the same was sought to be served on the person in-charge of goods vehicle but he refused to receive the same. Under those circumstances, a copy of the order was affixed on the body of the lorry. The Assistant Commissioner was therefore of the view that there was an order passed by the Check Post Officer levying penalty and that order ought to have been produced along with the memorandum of appeal. He accordingly dismissed the appeal without going into its merits. 10.. The fact, therefore, remains that on order levying penalty was served on the petitioner. It can also be reasonably inferred that the petitioner was not aware of that order. It is further clear from the records that the petitioner who is the owner of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
