9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrender at the exit point when the vehicle exits the State of Karnataka, which in turn absolves the person carrying the goods in transit through the State of Karnataka from payment of any tax under the Act. The vehicle which had entered the State of Karnataka in whose favour the transit pass has been issued, if it fails to produce the transit pass at the exit point, as per the schedule or within the reasonable time, under the provisions of section 28AA(4) of the Act, it has to be presumed that the person could have sold the goods within the State of Karnataka, i.e., the owner of the vehicle has sold the goods within the State and the owner can be assessed accordingly to tax by the authorised officer in the prescribed manner. The facts in this writ petition, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner who was carrying latex goods in his vehicle entered Hosur Road Check-post at Attibele on December 30, 2004. However, the person-incharge of the vehicle of the petitioner was not issued with the transit pass, but on the other hand, was called upon to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 1,43,655 or to pay this amount for the purpose of issue of such transit pass, in terms of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alanivel and there is no occasion at all for the authorities to have detained the vehicle of the petitioner for non-payment of certain tax liability determined on the said Palanivel. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the provisions of section 28AA(7) of the Act and submits that the provision is one meant to safeguard the interest of the Revenue that if the authorities are of the view that the owner of a vehicle, who is assessed to tax under sub-section (4) of section 28AA of the Act, after such assessment is carrying any goods taxable under the Act, from any place outside the State in a goods vehicle from any place outside the State or movement from within the State, as the case may be and bound for any other place outside the State and is passing through the State, the authority may demand from such owner an amount equivalent to two times the tax leviable on such goods under the Act, as security, till the transit pass is surrendered at the exit check-post, and submits that such security can be called upon to be furnished only by a person who is the owner of the vehicle who had been assessed to tax earlier and who was recalcitrant in disch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods vehicle after its entry into the State or after movement has commenced as the case may be. (2) The driver or the person-in-charge of the vehicle shall deliver within the stipulated time a copy of the transit pass obtained under sub-section (1) to the officer-in-charge at the last check-post or barrier before his exit from the State. (3) If for any reason, the goods carried in a goods vehicle are, after entry into the State or after commencement of movement, as the case may be, not moved out of the State within the time stipulated in the transit pass, the owner of the goods vehicle shall furnish to the officer empowered in this behalf the reasons for such delay and other particulars, if any, thereof and such officer shall after due enquiry extend the time of exit by suitably amending the transit pass. Provided that where the goods carried by a vehicle are, after their entry into the State or after commencement of movement, as the case may be, transported outside the State by any other vehicle or conveyance, the onus of proving that goods have actually moved out of the State shall be on the owner of the vehicle who originally brought the goods into the State. (4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owner of the vehicle, and shall be jointly and severally liable to pay any amount of tax or penalty payable, etc. Even with this amendment, what is provided for is that the determination of liability can be joint, i.e., both on the owner of the vehicle as well as the carrier of goods. It is no doubt true that under this provision, the liability could have been determined even on M/s. Roshan Freight Carriers (Kanpur), in terms of order dated September 21, 2004 on an occasion when their goods was being transported by said Palanivel owner of a vehicle in which such goods was being transported but unfortunately the order which is sought to be relied upon for justifying the present action on the part of the respondents, does not so fasten the liability jointly on the owner of the vehicle as well as the carrier M/s. Roshan Freight Carriers (Kanpur), but only on the owner of the vehicle namely Mr. Palanivel. In fact the carrier's name does not figure anywhere in this order. In terms of the order dated September 21, 2004 the liability can only be on the owner of the vehicle and not on any other person. Under such circumstance, the order dated September 21, 2004 cannot constitute the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
