2016 (8) TMI 573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... approached this Court challenging Ext.P10 order by which the Intelligence Officer had imposed penalty of 5,55,526/- on M/s.Peevees Projects Pvt.Ltd in respect of the year 2011-12 under Section 47(6) of the KVAT Act, 2003 ("the Act" for short).   2. According to the petitioner, they have given a bank guarantee for releasing the goods, when it was detained at the check post under Section 47(2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... detained at the check post, ownership of the goods continued to vest in the consignor. As a result of which, the consignor had given the bank guarantee. The contention is that, Section 47(6) clearly indicates that adjudication proceedings has to proceed after notice to the owner of the goods. Such a statutory provision had not been complied by the Intelligence Officer, which resulted in substantia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spute about the fact that the Intelligence Officer had issued notice to the consignee namely M/s.Peevees Projects Pvt.Ltd.  In such circumstances, prima facie I don't think that there is violation of principles of natural justice, especially when the respondents have a case that the consignee had produced ownership certificate.  The petitioner, if aggrieved, is entitled to challenge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X