1992 (6) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the appellants which contained full particulars as to the location of the factory as well as the place of the office. The said note also had a serial number. The description of the goods "HDPE Mono Filaments" and the number of bags and their quantity are all stated in the delivery note. The approximate value of the goods was also stated. However, these delivery notes were not the ones prescribed under rule 23B. They were not the delivery notes contained in a book which ought to have been obtained from the sales tax department, as stated in subclause (1-A) of the said rule. In the circumstances, the check post officer thought it necessary to issue a show cause notice as to why the penalty should not be levied for the failure to produce the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce, the appellate authority opined that it was not a case for levy of maximum penalty. Consequently, he reduced the penalty to Rs. 200 in each case. 3.. This order was sought to be revised by the Joint Commissioner under section 22-A of the Act. In his order revising the appellate order, the Joint Commissioner states that the delivery notes produced were not serially machine numbered and they did not mention the value of the goods transported and that there were no proper particulars that would compel the appellants to account for the transportation. He further observed that: "Failure in production of the delivery note prescribed under the Act, even if the goods were being transported from factory to office only indicates the intention .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the revisional power could be exercised subject to the procedural requirements. In the instant case, the original authority levied the maximum penalty on the ground that the delivery note produced was not in form No. 39 issued by the department. But, nowhere had he stated that there was an attempt to evade the tax. The intention to evade the tax was for the first time mooted out only by the revisional authority. The "intention" is a state of mind and, obviously, has to be inferred from the proved facts. The first appellate authority in the instant case has stated that the contravention is no doubt true, but it is only technical and all relevant particulars are found in the delivery note. The intention of the appellants in no way was doubt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X