9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opriate appeal against the impugned penalty order before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial taxes (Appeals) under section 62 ibid. It is further directed that if such appeal is filed by the petitioner within 30 (thirty) days from today, the said Appellate Authority shall decide the same on merits in accordance with law without raising objection as to the bar of limitation. The Petitioner will be entitled to raise all his objections and furnish the requisite explanation before the said Appellate Authority, whose powers undoubtedly are co-extensive with those of the Assessing Authority. The deposit of penalty under the impugned order will remain subject to the final order to be passed by such Appellate Authority. - Petition disposed of - W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner in this court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-assessee relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of T.P. Mohammed Versus- The AFFITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-I, BANGALORE reported in 2015 (81) Kar.L.J. 533 (HC) (DB), submitted that non-generation of e-sugam number before entering into the state of Karnataka was a bonafide error and a lapse of clerical nature and the respondent authority could not have imposed a huge penalty of ₹ 4,18,755 without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner-assessee to explain the reasons for such non-generation of e-sugam num ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the said notification one more circular was issued by the Department insisting on the authorities to educate the dealers the necessity of uploading into Department Website such Dispatched. It was also made clear that penalty should not be levied in cases where notified goods as per the notification dated 28.02.2011 are not uploaded by the dealer into the Department Website up to 31.03.2011, but on the contrary such penalty should be compulsorily levied if e-sugam number is duplicated or recycles by the dealers. 7. In the present case, the transit in question which was checked by the respondent authority is of 06-07-2014 and it, prima facie, also appears that no cogent reason was furnished by the petitioner-assessee for not up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
