9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er by oversight, the appellant could have summoned the documents from the consignor, who had dispatched the goods from Goa. Even if there was an urgency and that he was compelled to pay the penalty, nothing has been prevented from filing an appeal challenging the order of penalty and no such an attempt is also made. Admittedly, the penalty has not been paid by the driver or carrier. But the penalty is paid by the appellant. If the penalty had been paid by the driver or carrier for their mistake, the matter would have been different. If the appellant for no fault of him was made to pay, the penalty at least, he would have recovered the penalty from the carrier and no such action is taken. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. On enquiry, it was learnt that the goods were to be delivered to the customers of the appellant at Hiriyur. 3. Based on the above facts, the respondent learnt that the appellant without raising the local tax invoice at Hubli was transporting the goods directly from Goa to Hiriyur only to evade the tax payable at Hubli. Accordingly, the audit authority examining the reply of the appellant by overruling the objections, an order was passed. Against which, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and thereafter the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I, Bangalore, exercising the power vested in him under section 64(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 took up a suo motu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revisional authority was not justified in reversing the order of the appellate authority. 7. Admittedly, the goods were dispatched from Goa. The appellant is said to have placed the order from Hubli to be delivered to his customers at Hiriyur. The goods were under transit without the documents. It is the specific case of the appellant that the driver by oversight had not carried the documents. Even if the driver had not carried the documents by oversight, his explanation would have been different. The statement made by the driver before the authorities, when the vehicle was intercepted, has not been placed before the revisional authority. Against the order of penalty, no appeal is filed. If really, if it is a case of non-possessing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
