9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e original authority or the authority imposing the penalty as to what is the amount of penalty to be imposed and mere fact that the discretion has been exercised to impose penalty at 1½ times in this case would not by itself a ground to exercise revisional jurisdiction and enhance the penalty to three times. However, having set aside the order passed by the appellate authority it is clear that the maximum penalty imposed by the revisional authority at three times the rate of tax is arbitrary. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and it would be just and reasonable to reduce the penalty to 1½ times as proposed by the original authority and imposition of penalty at ₹ 47,926 imposed by the original authority under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reducing of penalty and sought time to produce the document. After show-cause notice was issued the order was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on February 8, 2008, by rejecting the explanation given by the appellant that en route Bhatkal to Mangalore 10,050 kgs. Of M.S. tor steel had been unloaded at Syriar. However, penalty of ₹ 47,926 was imposed being times the value. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the appellant therein before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore, under section 62 of the KST Act, 1957 which was allowed by the order dated October 18, 2008 and the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, the original authority, was set aside holding that deficit of the quan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in imposing the maximum penalty of three times and therefore the order passed by the first appellate authority and the assessing authority were erroneous. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents argued in support of the order passed by the revisional authority. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record. The material on record would clearly show that there was deficit in the quantity of M.S. tor steel contained in the lorry only it was intercepted at Udupi en route Bhatkal to Mangalore is not in dispute. According to the assessee the said deficit has been explained and according to the original author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity imposing the penalty as to what is the amount of penalty to be imposed and mere fact that the discretion has been exercised to impose penalty at 1 times in this case would not by itself a ground to exercise revisional jurisdiction and enhance the penalty to three times. However, having set aside the order passed by the appellate authority it is clear that the maximum penalty imposed by the revisional authority at three times the rate of tax is arbitrary. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and it would be just and reasonable to reduce the penalty to 1 times as proposed by the original authority and imposition of penalty at ₹ 47,926 imposed by the original authority under section 53(12) of the Karnataka Valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
