9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cannot contend contrary to the grounds urged before the first appellate authority for assailing the order of the learned Tribunal. In view of the above facts, the question of law raised in the petition memorandum has to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. - S.T.R.P. No. 28 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2009 - MANJUNATH K.L. AND ARAVIND KUMAR , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by ARAVIND KUMAR J. The assessee has filed this petition questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 2016-2017/2004 dated October 5, 2007. The facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a private l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated January 14, 2004. The said order of the first appellate authority was further pursued by the assessee before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 20162017/2004. The Tribunal on considering the submissions dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of levy of penalty holding that the assessee had misled the authorities and the said act of the assessee amounted to an offence under section 10(d) of the CST Act, 1956, by order dated October 5, 2007. Aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Tribunal the assessee is in revision before this court by raising the following substantial questions of law: Whether the purchase of the cement by the petitioner-assessee for construction of resorts attracts the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate authority that the grounds urged by the appellant from (a) to (i) has been considered by the appellate authority and the contentions now raised by the assessee with regard to non-application of mind by the adjudicating authority. It is contended that the authority which levied the penalty did not specify as to what clauses of the Act have been violated and here this itself demonstrates that the authorities were not definite and it amounts to vagueness and as such the decision in the case of South Eastern Coal Fields Limited v. Sales Tax Officer reported in [2008] 14 VST 298 (Orissa) is pressed into service. It is seen that in the instant case showcause notice has been issued on September 5, 2001 proposing to levy penalty and no repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice or in the grounds urged before the first appellate authority since it was fully aware of it. The adjudicating authority has on consideration of the facts available before it has levied the penalty under section 10A of the CST Act. The decision in the case of South Eastern Coal Fields Limited [2008] 14 VST 298 (Orissa) pressed into service by the assessee. We find that in the said case show-cause notice issued to the assessee. It was not specified as to under which provision the assessee would be liable to pay the penalty and on such consideration the honourable Orissa High Court has held that the show-cause notice suffers from legal infirmity. It is also noticed that in the said judgment a plea was taken by the assessee at the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
