9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rying the delivery note in form VAT505 with the consignment ?". 2. This revision is preferred against the order dated September 30, 2011 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore in S. T. A. No. 686 of 2011, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent was partly allowed. The Tribunal while confirming the order dated October 25, 2010 passed by the appellate authority, reduced the penalty imposed by the Commercial Tax Officer under section 53(12)(a)(ii) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act") from Rs. 2,06,554 to Rs. 5,000. 3. The respondents are private limited company and a registered dealer under the provisions of the KVATAct, 2003. On February 13, 2010, they were transporting some goods worth Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted facts. We are of the opinion that neither the Commercial Tax Officer nor the Tribunal has any power to reduce the penalty than what is prescribed under section 53(12)(a)(ii) of the Act. 5. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 53 of the Act provides that the owner or person in charge of goods vehicle shall carry with him, such documents as may be prescribed, or notified by the Commissioner in respect of the goods carried in the goods vehicle. Section 53(12)(a)(ii) of the Act provides that, the officer in charge of a check-post or a barrier or any other officer in respect of any contravention of, or non-compliance with, the provisions of sub-section (2), for which sufficient cause is not furnished, levy a penalty which in cases othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the concerned authority for not carrying the delivery note with the goods/consignment. The respondent do not dispute that it is mandatory to carry delivery note in form VAT505 as provided for under rule 157 of the Rules. The respondent, as a matter of fact has admitted/accepted that they were not carrying delivery note in form VAT505, before the Commercial Tax Officer and paid the penalty imposed on him. Thereafter, he challenged the order of imposing penalty before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority confirmed the order of Commercial Tax Officer. 8. The Appellate Tribunal though confirmed the findings of both the authorities below on the point of default committed by the respondent, reduced the penalty as aforem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
