9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced - The assessee, in the present case, chose not to contest the matter before the Officer in-charge of Check Post and they volunteered to pay penalty. In this backdrop, in our opinion, the Tribunal committed a grave error of law in allowing the appeals based on the judgment of this Court in N. Subramanya which has no application to the facts of the present case. The findings of fact and the proposition of law carved out by the Tribunal, in our opinion, are perverse and hence the order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. Decided in favour of Revenue. - STRP NO.216/2011 & STRP.NOS.150-151/2012 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2014 - MR. DILIP B.BHOSALE AND MR. B.MANOHAR, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, HCGP) JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commercial Taxes 1997 (43) KLJ 391 ? 3. The respondent-assessee is a Private Limited Company and a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electrical wires. The assessee had purchased iron and steel from M/s. Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Vishakapatnam which were to be delivered in the State of Karnataka in three goods vehicles bearing Nos.CAW-331, MEZ-6219, and MYA-9090. The goods, which were to be delivered in the State of Karnataka at the premises of the assessee in three vehicles, were valued at ₹ 1,82,012/-, ₹ 2,06,094/- and ₹ 2,05,347/-. Though they were to be delivered at the premises of the assessee, in fact they were delivered at the premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontemplated by Section 28-A(4) of the Act holding that it was a case of 'no documents' for movement of goods from the premises of the assessee to the premises of M/s. Miki Steel Works Private Limited. As a matter of fact, the assessee did not produce any valid documents as contemplated by Section 28-A(2) of the Act till the order was passed by the Check Post Officer. Before the Appellate Authority, for the first time, the assessee filed Form No.II and that too a photocopy thereof. The document produced (Form No.II) before the Appellate Authority was not original. In view thereof and also in view of the fact that the valid documents as contemplated by Section 28-A(2) were not produced by the assessee when the vehicles were intercepte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Commercial Taxes 1997 (43) KLJ 391 where it is held that Petitioner produced several documents before the FAA. But the same were not considered on the ground that they were produced belatedly . In a situation involved under Section 28-A of the Act, the requisite documents may be produced even before the Appellate Authority and the revenue should not act too technically while rejecting the documents The circumstances clearly indicate that there has been a failure of justice and the petitioner had no proper opportunity at all to prove his case We are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied under Sec.28-A(4) of the Act is not in justified and hence the issue raised is answered in the negative and in favour of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
