9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her goods vehicle. The appellant immediately sought the documents from the consignor. However, in the meanwhile penalty proceedings were initiated and show cause notices were issued. The appellant appeared along with his counsel and produced the relevant documents which he had obtained in the meanwhile. The appellant also filed elaborate objections to the show cause notices. Without considering any of these explanations and the documents produced, the officer levied the penalty. The appellate authority found as follows: "In my considered opinion, the contention of the respondent in the impugned penalty orders that Sri S.K. Nahar, advocate and power of attorney holder, had appeared before him in response to notices No. K. 262/ 81-82 and No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pedite the reply to this office letter, referred to above. Even this gesture did not bring forth any compliance from the respondent. So, another reference was made to him, on September 2, 1982 bearing No. 1089/82-83, which met with the same result. Such highhandedness on the part of the respondent and the deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondent, are highly deplorable. Alas, all in vain, and nothing has been heard till date on this matter. The obvious logical conclusion that can be drawn from the sphinx like silence on the part of the respondent in this behalf, is that the allegations made by the learned power of attorney holder, on the above line, are completely true. It is ardently and sincerely hoped that in the interest of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r which the transactions were found to have been effected was only to evade tax and any subsequent efforts made were an afterthought." At para 4(v) of the order the Commissioner says that it was not clear as to whether the appellant presented his representation to the Check-post Officer in time; if he had really done so there would not have been any occasion for Check-post Officer to refuse the same and on this basis the finding recorded by the appellate authority was reversed regarding the representations and the explanations. A reading of the order of the Commissioner shows that he has treated the matter quite lightly and assumes that the Check-post Officer would not have acted in the manner alleged by the appellant. The appellate autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re apart from the delayed production of the documents to doubt the bona fides of the trader. When section 28-A(4) contemplates issuance of a show cause notice before levying penalty it is implied that the concerned person may explain the circumstances resulting in the failure to have the documents readily available for production at the check-post. Section 28-A(4) empowers the levy of penalty when sufficient cause is not furnished for the non-compliance with sub-section (2) of section 28-A (here we are not concerned with the other provisions). In S.T.A. 6 of 1984 (Prakash Roadlines (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka)* we have already held that the levy of penalty is not an automatic imposition for the failure to compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
