9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and obviously after getting information from the driver of the vehicle. He also did not produce any records pertaining to the goods under transport. It was only in the evening on 29.07.2010 at about 5 P.M. it seems appellant company faxed copy of invoice bearing No.139 dated 29.07.2010 in which it is contended that 240 bags of Pan Parag were to be delivered to M/s.Lovely Enterprises, No.7, G.S.Market, O.T Pete Cross, Bengaluru-53 in which the company has stated that the copy of invoice is with the driver and it continues to be with the driver who was afraid of the inspecting officer and hence he could not speak and satisfy the authorities by producing the bill. Said fax message further requested for early release of the vehicle. All th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce) Bengaluru at 11.00 A.M on 29.07.2010 at National Highway No.4 (Tumkur-Bengaluru Road). At the time of interception, the driver in-charge of the goods vehicle did not produce any documents before the investigation officer. Thereafter physical verification of the goods under transport in the goods vehicle was taken up immediately. On verification it was noticed by the officer that the goods vehicle was carrying 14,61,600 pouches of 1.8 gms each, Pan Parag-Gutkha which was packed in 60 bundles with total weight of 2630.880 kgs. The inspecting officer has valued the goods in the vehicle based on Maximum Retail Price(MRP) at ₹ 14,61,600/-. Despite repeated demands, the driver did not produce any document pertaining to transport of gutk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice on 30.07.2010 itself. After considering the reply and after hearing the appellant, an order came to be passed by the Commercial Tax Officer under section 53(12) of the Act on 04.08.2010 imposing penalty of ₹ 3,13,075.00ps (amounting to double the amount of tax). Being aggrieved by the said order dated 04.08.2010, appellant filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (A), Bengaluru-20 in KVAT.AP.No.1495/10-11. By a non speaking order the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appellate Authority) allowed the appeal on 07.04.2012 by exercising the powers under section 62(6) of the Act as per Annexure-C. 4. When the facts stood thus, a show cause notice came to be issued by Revisional Authority/Addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods vehicle carrying the goods; however within few hours all the documents were faxed to the office of concerned officer to show that all the taxes were paid in respect of the goods even prior to transport of goods. The sum and substance of the arguments of Sri.Satynarayana, learned counsel for appellant is that appellant cannot be said to be at fault and therefore the first appellate authority was justified in setting aside the order passed by the original authority imposing penalty. In other words he submits that the impugned order of revisional authority exercising power under section 64(1) of the Act is bad in the eye of law. 7. Said submissions were opposed by Sri.K.M.Shivoyogiswamy, learned Additional Government Advocate app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evening on 29.07.2010 at about 5 P.M. it seems appellant company faxed copy of invoice bearing No.139 dated 29.07.2010 in which it is contended that 240 bags of Pan Parag were to be delivered to M/s.Lovely Enterprises, No.7, G.S.Market, O.T Pete Cross, Bengaluru-53 in which the company has stated that the copy of invoice is with the driver and it continues to be with the driver who was afraid of the inspecting officer and hence he could not speak and satisfy the authorities by producing the bill. Said fax message further requested for early release of the vehicle. All the aforementioned admitted facts clearly reveal that the person in-charge of the vehicle or the person who came within half an hour after interception of the vehicle calling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is certainly an afterthought and hence it cannot be accepted. Therefore same is not rightly accepted by revisional authority. The act of the appellant in not sending records along with the person in-charge of the vehicle along with the goods is a clear violation of clause (b) of sub-section(2) of section 53 of the Act. Under those circumstances revisional authority was fully justified in interfering with the order passed by appellate commissioner which has treated the matter lightly, ignoring the mandatory provisions of law and granted the relief to the assessee on the ground that there was no intention to evade tax. Order passed by appellate commissioner though runs to number of pages is unreasoned. The order of appellate Commissioner mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
