9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated February 24, 2006, accompanied by delivery note in Form VAT No. 515. Those documents are produced at annexures A and B to the writ petition respectively. The vehicle which was carrying the granite blocks was checked at a check-post. At the time of inspection, the driver of the lorry produced the aforesaid documents vide annexures A and B before the first respondent. The said fact is not in dispute. According to the first respondent, the delivery note which accompanied the goods, should have been in form VAT No. 505 and not in form VAT No. 515. In this view of the matter, a notice came to be issued to the petitioner under section 53(12) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act , for sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods carried in the goods vehicle or boat, ship or similar vessel; and . . . The bare reading of the aforesaid section 53(2)(b) makes it clear that the owner or person in-charge of the goods vehicle shall carry with him a tax invoice or a bill of sale or a delivery note or such other documents as may be prescribed, in respect of the goods carried in the goods vehicle. Thus, it is open for the owner or person in-charge of the goods either to carry with him a tax invoice, or a bill of sale or a delivery note or such other documents as may be prescribed. It impliedly means that, it is not necessary that he should carry with him all the necessary documents. The inspection was made on February 24, 2006. As on that day, section 53(2)(b) rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said amendment was not in existence as on February 25, 2006. As aforesaid, the amendment came into effect with effect from April 1, 2006. Thus, whatever acts that are done by the petitioner on February 25, 2006 are protected under the old law, i.e., as existed prior to the amendment dated April 1, 2006. The amended provisions cannot make the petitioner liable to pay penalty for the acts done by him earlier. A person cannot be penalised and penalty cannot be levied for the acts done by him at an earlier point of time, inasmuch as there was no law levying penalty during the said period. In this view of the matter, the arguments advanced on behalf of Government cannot be accepted. Another contention advanced on behalf of the Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
