9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s film coated tablets (medicines). Interception of this consignment was made by the check-post authority at the airport, Bangalore on January 15, 2005. The driver of the goods vehicle submitted the documents like airway bill of Jet Airways. Xerox copy of the letter dated January 15, 2005 of M/s. Bangalore Pharmaceutical and Research Laboratory (Pvt.) Ltd., Jayanagar, Bangalore and challan of M/s. Groversons Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, bills of entry for home consumption, invoices from M/s. H. Lundbeck A/S Denmark and declaration of Lundbeck India Pvt. Ltd. That these documents are either copies or Xerox of the originals. The airway bill indicated the consignment from Mumbai to Bangalore in favour of Bangalore Pharmaceutical and Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as, the KST Act , for short). Therefore, they proceeded to levy the penalty of ₹ 20,93,687 under section 28A(4)(b) of the KST Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the appeal. 4. The appellate authority held that section 28A(1) of the KST Act was enacted to prevent or check evasion of tax by establishing check-post or barrier. The plain language employed in the section as well as in its intendment does not clothe the check-post officer with jurisdiction to make an assessment as long as the documents carried in the vehicle satisfy the requirement of the prescription made under sub-section (2) of section 28A of the Act or the Rules made under the Act. 5. A perusal of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpret the nature of transaction involved between the parties. All that he wanted which is as per law and in fact it is his duty also according to law to insist for documents and verify the documents as to the correctness according to law to allow the goods vehicle for onward movement. The assessee failed his test and therefore he has faced penal consequence according to law. With too many documents, it cannot be expected from a check-post authority to think on the lines of the appellate authority to exonerate from the charge of violation of law under section 28A(2) and thereby attempt evasion of tax by inference due to contravention of law and held the documents provided all the information required and thereby there is no violation of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pancies, the check-post officer has imposed the penalty. As long as the goods which are carried are accompanied by valid documents as prescribed under law, merely because there are some discrepancies and the check-post officer is unable to understand the implications or what is written in the said documents, that does not confer any right on him to impose penalty. At the same time, the law does not require in whose name the said documents should be in existence. They are all left to the parties. Those documents are required by the Department to levy tax, if tax is attracted under the provisions of the Act. Once those particulars are available from the said documents, the requirement of law is fully met. Unfortunately, the check-post officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
