9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act r/w Rules 23-B There is no violation of any of the provisions of the Act - The interest of government is fully protected - The order passed by the Revisional Authority is contrary to law - There is no allegation with regard to evasion of tax - The revisional power can be invoked, only if any order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is passed by the Authorities - Revisional Authority order set aside and Appellate Authority order is confirmed – Decided in favour of assessee. - S.T.A. No. 22 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2014 - MR. DILIP B. BHOSALE AND MR. B. MANOHAR, JJ. For the Appellant :Smt. Vani H., Adv For the Respondent : T.K. Vedamurthy, HCGP JUDGMENT B. Manohar, J. This appeal is file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 170 dated 4.3.2002, which were issued by the appellant/firm situated at Mangalore. The respondent/Authority found that in violation of section 28A(2)(b) of the Act, the goods were delivered in favour of M/s. Amar Glass and Plywood situated at No. 139/9, Seshadripuram, Bangalore, though in the said delivery note, some other name has been mentioned. The name of M/s. Amar Glass and Plywood was not mentioned either in the delivery note or in the invoice. Accordingly, imposed penalty of ₹ 10,682/- under section 28A(4) of the KST Act as per the order dated 6.3.2002. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty passed by the respondents, the appellant preferred an appeal under section 20(5) of the KST Act before the Appellate Authority. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Revisional Authority has filed this appeal. 5. Smt. H Vani, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the order passed by the respondent/Authority is contrary to law. The appellant had sold the plywood to the dealer in Bangalore. He had dispatched two consignments in a goods vehicle along with invoices and delivery challans. The check post Authorities verified the same. However, while the said goods were being unloaded at Seshadripuram, Bangalore, the respondent/Authority intercepted and verified the documents. Admittedly, a part of plywood was to be delivered at Seshadripuram and the remaining part of the plywood was to be delivered at Mosque Road, Bangalore. In view of restriction of movements of the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aded the goods at Mosque Road, Bangalore instead of unloading the goods at Seshadripuram, Bangalore, which is contrary to law. The penalty imposed is in accordance with law and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned and other documents. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is: Whether the appellant has violated section 28A(2)(b) (d) of the KST Act? 9. During the course of arguments, the Advocate appearing for the appellant made available the original records relating to the delivery note in Form No.39 dated 4.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest of the Revenue and initiated revisional proceedings under section 22A(1) of the KST Act. The reasons assigned by the Revisional Authority to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority is enoneous in law. No document has been produced to show that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and it is erroneous in law. As stated earlier, the goods in transit were fully covered by two delivery notes as well as two invoices. A part of goods was to be delivered at Seshadripuram, Bangalore and the remaining part of the goods was to be delivered at Mosque Road, Bangalore. In view of restriction of movement of the lorries in the Mosque Road, the goods were directed to be unloaded at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
