9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her hand, there is absolutely no awareness bestowed by the assessing officer to the explanation offered by the dealer for non-production when it was demanded to be produced by the check-post officer. Whether it was justified or not is not an aspect which we are required to go into in this appeal as the question is only about the legality of the levy of penalty and in the absence of a finding that the dealer had not come up with sufficient cause for non-furnishing of the documents at the time of the check, the penalty is not sustainable. Appeal allowed. - 8 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2009 - SHYLENDRA KUMAR D.V. AND ARAVIND KUMAR , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR J. This appeal had been admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduce the supporting documents in respect of the goods that was being transported in the vehicle, particularly, to support the fact that the goods carried by the vehicle were goods which had suffered sales tax liability at the last point of sale. A check memo notice was issued to the driver of the vehicle and on the very next day the appellant owner of the goods in question filed its reply and along with that the appellant had also produced requisite documents of invoice to support the transaction of sale in favour of the appellant and also to prove the factum of the goods having suffered tax at the sale point and collected by the seller. It appears the check-post officer though accepted this invoice, had nevertheless, proceeded to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is therefore that the dealer is in appeal before this court. Submission of Sri Atul K. Alur, learned counsel for the appellant, is that there was no justification for levy of penalty and it was not even proposed to the appellant-dealer that penalty is proposed to be levied for nonproduction of form 3 and books of account; that penalty has been levied without any application of mind and without any opportunity even when there was no justification for levy of penalty. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant, has taken us through the provisions of section 28A(4) of the Act and submits that the assessing authority had not even mentioned that the cause shown by the appellantdealer for non-furnishing of the invoice when it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case, there is no dispute that the document in question has been produced the next day and it has also been accepted by the check-post officer himself. If so, a levy will be justified only if the assessing officer was of the view that the dealer had failed to come up with sufficient cause for non-furnishing when it was demanded. We do not find any recording of such nature by the assessing officer. On the other hand, there is absolutely no awareness bestowed by the assessing officer to the explanation offered by the dealer for non-production when it was demanded to be produced by the check-post officer. Whether it was justified or not is not an aspect which we are required to go into in this appeal as the question is only about the lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
