9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice upon the driver as prescribed under section 20-A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), to show cause why penalty of Rs. 62,510 should not be levied. The statement of the driver was recorded and the driver conceded that though he contacted the transporter at Bombay he was not in a position to produce any valid document to indicate that the goods were in transit. After considering the statement of the driver the A.C.T.O. imposed a penalty of Rs. 62,510 and directed that the goods shall not be released unless the penalty amount was paid. 2.. Amongst the goods found in the truck were Navalgin tablets contained in 35 cartons. The respondent Ruby Traders are carrying on business at Madras and/preferred writ petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um, from the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Enforcement (B) dated February 17, 1990. 3.. The learned single Judge by order dated September 13, 1990 came to the conclusion that though the truck driver did not carry any document, the respondents are not liable for payment of penalty because there was no dispute that respondent carries on business at Madras and respondent is not a fictitious person. The learned single Judge was impressed by the fact that the respondent is a registered dealer in Madras and claims the consignment was meant to be delivered at Madras in view of the invoices produced. The learned judge overlooked the objection of the appellants that the documents produced in support of the petition were not genuine. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel also urged that it was not demonstrated that the copies of the invoices produced were not genuine. 5.. Section 28-A(4) of the Act inter alia, provides that the officer-in-charge of the check-post may in respect of any contravention of or non-compliance of the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (3-A) and (3-B) for which sufficient cause is not shown, levy penalty. Sub-section (5) prescribes that the penalty leviable under sub-section (4) shall not exceed double the amount of tax leviable in respect of the goods under transport. The perusal of sub-sections (2), (3), (3-A) and (3-B) of the Act makes it clear that the owner or person-in-charge of a goods vehicle shall carry with him the trip sheet or a bill of sale or delivery note c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, with considerable merit that there is serious doubt about the genuineness of the copies of the invoices produced by the respondents. The letter produced by him to which we have referred to earlier in this judgment leaves no manner of doubt that the copy of the invoice is not genuine. The sales tax number mentioned in the invoice by the S.K. Traders is NIC-5402 and the letter makes it clear that the said number has been allotted to M/s. Abdul Hussain Karimbhoy and not to S.K. Traders. It is, therefore, obvious that the documents produced by the respondents in support of the relief claimed in the petition are not genuine. In these circumstances, in our judgment, the learned Judge was in error in relying upon the uncorroborated claim of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
