9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while it was transporting industrial cables of two different varieties under two separate sale bills aggregating to Rs. 1,48,359. The consignments were being carried in the course of inter-State trade in favour of M/s. Eqsun Reyalla Ltd., Plot No. 98, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Hosur and the same were carried by the appellant/consignor. Since the goods vehicle did not stop at the check-post and the documents were not offered for verification before the CTO, the vehicle was chased for a distance of 1.5 km., beyond the check-post and stopped for non-production of documents. The CTO did not verify regarding the validity of the bills of sale. But according to the CTO there was contravention of section 53(2)(c) of the KVAT Act, 2003 on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in this regard, the appellate authority held that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to attempt to evade tax since the goods were accompanied with the valid invoices which cannot be said to be non-compliance with the requirement of law and accordingly, allowed the appeal. Thereafter the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued show-cause notice under section 64(1) of the Act on the ground that failure to stop the vehicle at the check-post of the CTO was in violation of section 53(2)(c) of the Act and that the obligation on the part of the driver to carry the documents was under section 53(2)(b) of the said Act and merely because the driver of the vehicle in question was carrying the bills of sale would not amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant case is industrial cables only four per cent of their value could have been the tax that was payable and therefore, the penalty also could not have been over and above four per cent. He has also submitted that the appellant has recently commenced its operation and therefore, a lenient view be taken in the matter in the absence of any intention to evade payment of tax. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon certain decisions which will be adverted to later on. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that in the instant case there has been a violation of section 53(2)(c) of the Act in view of the fact that the vehicle did not stop at the check-post. That the goods carried in the vehicle were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods. In order to ascertain the amount of tax leviable, section 4(1)(a) of the Act has to be considered and according to the counsel for the appellant, in the instant case section 4(1)(a)(2) of the Act read with Third Schedule is applicable in respect of the goods in question and accordingly, tax at the rate of four per cent is leviable and not tax at the rate of 12.5 per cent in terms of section 4(1)(b) of the Act. In the instant case, the revisional authority has noted that it is an admitted fact that the driver of the goods vehicle did not stop at the check-post. It was chased and stopped about one and half kilometres away from the check-post. It is also admitted that the same was a mistake though unintentional, but the consignment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 159 is established where the said failure on account of an intention not to stop the vehicle to evade tax or even without any such intention to defraud Revenue. The mere fact that the vehicle did not stop at the check-post which has been established in the instant case is sufficient to hold that there is violation of section 53(2)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the appellant cannot escape from the levy of penalty in terms of section 53(12) read with rule 159(4). Therefore, the explanation given by the appellant that on account of there being a long queue of vehicles, the goods vehicle in question could not be stopped or that there was mistake on the part of the driver in not stopping the vehicle cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 of 1997) wherein it was held that there was a technical violation of law and therefore, the imposition of penalty could not be sustained, as the guilty intention on the part of the assessee or taxpayers in not complying with the statutory requirements was not present. However, in the instant case, the check-post officer, had to chase the vehicle and stop the same for inspecting the consignment and there has been violation of the provisions of section 53(2)(c) of the Act. Hence the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the case of Nath Steel & Non-Ferrous Re-Rolling Mills v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [1997] 104 STC 118 (Karn) where the appellate authority had satisfied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
