9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass in duplicate containing such particulars of the consignment in the goods vehicle. The transporter has not complied with Section 53(2)(d) and Section 54(l)(b) of the KVAT Act. No infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is contrary to law and cannot be sustained under law. Mere production of the document at subsequent point of time will not absolve the responsibility of the person in-charge of the vehicle to produce the relevant records with the seal and signature of States as well as the States in which the goods have been entered. The Tribunal has not examined the matter in detail and has not taken into consideration violation of Section 54(1)(b) and Section 53(2)(d) of the Act by the transporter. Hence, the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal cannot sustain and the same is required to be set aside. Decided in favour of Revenue. - STRP.No.106/2011 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2014 - MR. DILIP B BHOSALE AND MR. B MANOHAR, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, HCGP For the Respondent : Sri.Sheik Mourthuja, K.Mahalingam, Malashree, Advocates JUDGMENT B. Manohar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson in-charge of the goods vehicle to produce the documents as and when demanded by the Officers. There is delay of 5 hours in producing the documents without necessary particulars. Accordingly, the CTO rejected the said documents and issued notice on 1-3-2006 for imposing penalty under Section 53(12) of the Act. 3. In pursuance of the said notice, the respondent filed objections to the said notice. Further the respondent has paid the penalty amount of ₹ 2,46,187/- on 8-3-2006. The objections filed by the respondent-transporter was considered by the CTO and found that the goods that were carried in the goods vehicle were auto parts, electrical goods, hardware items, tiles, etc. Out of 41 consignments, 6 consignments were to be delivered at Bangalore and the remaining goods were to be delivered at Chennai after valuing the goods as per Section 53(12)(a)(i) of the KVAT Act and imposed a penalty of ₹ 7,67,696/- by its order dated 1-3-2006. The transporter being aggrieved by the order of penalty imposed by the CTO, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority under Section 62(6) of the KVAT Act. 4. The First Appellate Authority after examining the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is correct in accordance with law? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the penalty order merely on the ground that the documents have been tendered at the entry check post? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in relying on the decision of WS Tele Systems Limited which is totally not relevant and not applicable to the facts of the case? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that if the value of the goods transported is not ascertainable from the documents, no penalty could be levied? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the the Tribunal is sustainable in law? 6. Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned HCGP appearing for the State Government contended that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is contrary to law. When the said goods vehicle was Intercepted by the CTO attached to the Mobile squad, the person in-charge of the goods vehicle failed to produce the necessary documents. Admittedly the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced the necessary documents. After lapse of 5 hours, certain Xerox copies have been produced such as Trip Sheet and 41 LRs. On verification of the said documents, it was noticed that the seal and signature of the entry check post was not available on the said documents. The seal and signature of the check post of other States were also not available in the said documents, though the goods were being transported from Delhi to Chennai via Bangalore. Further, the person in-charge had not obtained transit pass in duplicate containing such particulars of the consignment in the goods vehicle. The transporter has not complied with Section 53(2)(d) and Section 54(l)(b) of the KVAT Act. No sufficient cause has been shown for non-production of the documents. Section 53(2)(d) reads as under: 53(2)(d) On entering the State limits, report at the first situated Check Post or Barrier and, on leaving State limits, report at the last situated Check Post or Barrier and give a declaration containing such particulars as may be prescribed in respect of the goods carried in the goods vehicle or Boat, Ship or similar vessel, before any officer in-charge of the Check Post or Barrier or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
