Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1993 (8) TMI 271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... em by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Group V, Enforcement, Salem (respondent herein). During the course of inspection, it was found out that the driver of the vehicle did not carry bill of sale or delivery note for the transport from Hosur to Salem. Such transport did not wholly satisfy the requirements of section 44 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short "the Act"), read with rules 35(1) and 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (for short "the Rules"). Consequently, a notice dated July 7, 1993, has been issued by the respondent in GDR. 4/93-94, to the branch manager, Venson Transports, Salem, requiring him to file his objections in writing within seven days of the date of receipt of the said notice as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any order in the W.M.P. Consequently, the main writ petition itself had been taken up for disposal today. 6.. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if at all the petitioner can be fastened with penal consequences for refraction or violation of section 45(4)(a) of the Act for not carrying with him the requisite documents, namely, the sale bill or delivery note for the transport from Hosur to Salem; but he cannot definitely be mulcted with any penal consequences for the evasion of the tax sought to be claimed and if at all, the consignor, namely, Latha Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., 89/1 "ANMOL" II Floor, Gandhi Bazar Main Road, Bangalore-560 004 alone would be liable for such consequences and in that view of the matter, noti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll carry with him- (i) Bill of sale or delivery note or such other documents as may be prescribed, and (ii) Goods vehicle record or trip sheet relating to the goods under transport and containing such particulars as may be prescribed and shall submit to such officer as may be prescribed the documents aforesaid or copies thereof within such time as may be prescribed." 9.. Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 45 dealing with offences and penalties prescribes the consequences to be flowing from non-carrying of records or documents specified in section 43 or section 44, as the case may be and the same is couched as below: "Any owner or other person in-charge of a boat or goods vehicle who fails to carry with him any of the records .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er documents as may be prescribed." 11.. Sub-section (1) of section 46 dealing with composition of offences, which is relevant, is couched in the following terms: "46. Composition of offences.-(1) The prescribed authority, may, whether on application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, give any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence under this Act, option to pay within a specified period, by way of composition of such offence- (a) Where the offence consists of the failure to pay, or the evasion of, any tax recoverable, under this Act, in addition to the tax so recoverable, a sum of money not exceeding one thousand rupees or double the amount of the tax recoverable, whichever is greater .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he goods detained on condition of his paying the tax due thereon for and on behalf of the consignor. Thus the original as well as the subsequent notices issued are apparently in conformity with the provisions adumbrated under the Act. 14.. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to two decisions of this Court, namely, Azeez Khan Sahib v. State of Madras [1967] 20 STC 213 and Assistant Commercial Tax Officer v. W.H. Deeth and Company [1975] 35 STC 396, to show that either demand of tax for the release of the goods or penalty in lieu of confiscation is not legally permissible, unless and until the owner of the lorry or carrier is either the dealer or the owner of the goods. No doubt, the proposition of law, as evolved in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates