9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the border between Karnataka and Maharashtra found the goods owned by the petitioner-assessee-dealer transported without being accompanied by commensurate original documents. A xerox copy of the original document produced the next day did not convince the officer for permitting the goods to pass through. As a follow up action, the goods which had been checked on March 31, 2004, had been detained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original authority had given an opportunity and levy of penalty being justified in terms of the statutory provisions, dismissed the appeal. The further appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 126 of 2006 also met the same fate, as the Tribunal noticed further facts such as change of ownership of the goods while in transit and thereby the present petitioner claiming its ownership, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the check-post officer and even before the order is passed, the original is also placed before the check-post officer and therefore there is absolutely no justification for levy of penalty on the petitioner on the premise that there was non-compliance with the requirements of law; that, in fact, this court has taken the view in several other cases that compliance can be secured even at the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstitute the original and it was the duty of the person causing movement of goods to ensure that the original document itself is accompanied and not any other type of copies. If the dealer takes risk of non-compliance with the requirements of law, consequence in law follows. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the authorities below. Accordingly, the petition is dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
