9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant the vehicle was parked at the shop of the consignee at Yeshwanthpur, that is, M/s. Srinivasa Wine Stores. At that time the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) seized the vehicle and asked for the documents. Since they were not produced penalty of Rs. 36,000 was levied. This order was reversed by the Assistant Commissioner on appeal by the appellant. The appellate authority foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced subsequently, since although it was produced subsequently it was for reasons that the proprietor had kept the same with him but was available and the driver had done his job of only transporting the goods. Therefore, the excise permit should be treated as pertaining to the said consignment only. It is also seen that the appellant has produced the invoice for the said goods issued by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been justified; contrarily the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer subjecting the uninformed driver to the levy of penalty; under the circumstances it is not proper, since documents like invoice and the excise permit are shown to have been available in respect of the said consignment and their non-production right at the time of check appears to be for reasonable cause as explained by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter of course under section 28-A and the authority will have to consider the explanation offered by the person concerned for the non-production of the documents. Section 28-A(4) itself creates a discretionary power and at the same time provides for an opportunity to the person to show cause against the levy of penalty for non-compliance with the provisions of section 28-A(2). Further, the quantum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
