9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act would be contrary to the spirit and intention behind sub-section (4) of section 22A of the Act and hence, we answer questions of law in favour of the appellant herein and against the Revenue in the facts and circumstances of case only. - 2 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2009 - MANJUNATH K.L. AND ARAVIND KUMAR , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by ARAVIND KUMAR J. The appellant is questioning the order of the revisional authority dated November 18, 2006 passed in exercise of the revisional power under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), wherein, the revisional authority has set aside the order dated December 6, 2005 passed by the appellate authority in A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein and considering the objections, came to the conclusion that the order of the appellate authority was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and revised the order of the appellate authority dated December 6, 2008 and confirmed the order of the CTO dated October 9, 2004 levying penalty of Rs. 16,650 by restoring the same, by order dated November 18, 2006. It is this order, which is now assailed in the appeal by the appellant by raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the checkpost officer was justified in levying penalty under section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 although the appellant being an exempted unit, there was no tax liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments as required and as such, the authorities on being satisfied, did not levy any tax since the said question did not arise particularly as the appellant was 100 per cent taxexempted unit. It is contended that non-stopping of the vehicle at the check-post as required under section 28A(2)(d) of the Act was only a bona fide mistake and the explanation given by the appellant as required under section 28A(4) of the Act having been reconsidered by the first appellate authority had rightly dropped the penalty proceedings and thus, the revisional authority was in error in confirming the order of the check-post authority and setting aside the first appellate authority's order and accordingly seeks that question of law be answered in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given by the party alleged to have contravened the provisions of sub-section (2), (3), (3A) or (3B) of section 28A to arrive at a conclusion that there was justifiable reason to levy the penalty. In the instant case, we find that the only ground on which penalty was levied was on account of non-stopping of the vehicle for reporting at the first check-post or barrier situated on the route as required under section 28A(2) of the Act. The authorities having found that there was no violation of any other provisions of law and the first appellate authority having accepted the cause given by the appellant as sufficient , the revisional authority was not justified in revising the order of the appellate authority and confirming the order of levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
