9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an abkari contractor. We are concerned with the imposition of penalty under section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short, "the Act") for the assessment year 1988-89. It has been found by the Appellate Tribunal that the transports of goods by the assessee on two occasions, May 18, 1988 and June 24, 1988, were not supported by any v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) of the Act. It was also held that the Revenue failed to prove that there was any attempt for evasion of tax on the goods under transport, and so the penalty imposed was not exigible. The order is dated January 6, 1990 (annexure C). The Revenue has come up in revision. 2.. We heard counsel for the Revenue Mr. N.N.D. Pillai. As stated, on two occasions, the transport of goods by the respondent- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We are of the view that the approach of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, that in the absence of facts to prove that there was an attempt of evasion of tax on the goods under transports, no penalty is exigible, even assuming that the transports were not accompanied by prescribed documents, is justified. The detailed order of the Appellate Tribunal, dated January 6, 1990, has properly adverted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsports were as per the rules and so the transports were with intention to evade tax.
The conclusion arrived at, does not logically accord with the facts stated by the Intelligence Officer.
There is no error of law in the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. We decline to interfere in revision. The revision is dismissed.
Petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
