9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Appellant Mr. C.S. Suryakanth, ADV. For Mr. Atul K. Alur, ADV.- For the Respondent ORDER The petitioner-State has filed the present revision petition u/s.66(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short KVAT Act ) aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), Bengaluru, in STA No.3008/2013 (M/s.Lizmontagens India (P) Ltd., vs. The State of Karnataka) by which the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant-assessee on account of minor discrepancy between e-Sugam and the Invoice with respect to value and quantity of goods. 2. Accepting the explanation given by the appellant-assessee that the said discrepancy occurred on account of the feeding of the particulars pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has already fed the purchase particular as per his earlier order in the website and obtained e-sugam. The Appellant was not informed by the consignor in respect of dispatch of shortage of goods. Due to the shortage of goods the value of the goods is also varied. Above this para i.e. in the para no.10, the quantity mentioned in the bill of sale is 9110 kg and the quantity mentioned in e-sugam is 9800 kg. To this difference there is an explanation in para no.11 of the appeal memo. Under the circumstances, observation by the CTO in his order stating that the goods under transport which was covered by e-sugam bearing no.8103441491 is defected and the sale is not pertain to the transaction thereby breached sec.53(2)(A)(b) of the KVAT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anation throw the light on the aspect of lesser quantity of the goods at the time inspection by the Authority concerned. Hence on all these grounds we are of the considered view that the reasoning findings and the conclusion of the check post Authority as well as the confirmation of the order of the check post Authority by the First Appellate Authority are erroneous. Accordingly, we answer in the Affirmative. 3. Having heard the learned counsels, we are satisfied that the impugned order does not give rise to any question of law requiring consideration by this Court and the explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be plausible and the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error or perversity in accepting the same and se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
