9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act is with respect to the defalcation of, supporting documents having not accompanied the transport, thus attempting an evasion of tax due to the Government. The said defalcation warrants imposition of penalty on the dealer at maximum of twice the amount of tax sought to be evaded. The transporter too has a liability to ensure due compliance of the provisions of the Act, and hence, there can be no defect found in the owner of the vehicle being proceeded against for such defalcation. The vehicle had evaded checking by the authorities and as is seen from the records, it had to be chased and intercepted for carrying out the inspection. This clearly brings out the connivance of the dealer in having attempted to evade tax - penalty uph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e premises of the petitioner and then directed the vehicle to be taken to the Police station. The Department counters with the assertion that the vehicle was sought to be detained in the course of transportation, for inspection. The vehicle having not been stopped, had to be chased and waylaid before inspection was carried out. We do not intend to consider the allegations and counter allegations on this aspect, since both the lower authorities, the fact finding authorities, have found against the dealer. The question of law raised is only as to whether penalty could be imposed under Sections 47 and 69 of the Act, thus, in effect, mulcting the petitioner/dealer with a double jeopardy on the same defalcation. 3. Section 47 of the Act speak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself is the owner of the vehicle, it cannot be said that the proceedings under Sections 47 and 69 of the Act cannot be taken simultaneously. The proceedings under Section 47 of the Act is with respect to the defalcation of, supporting documents having not accompanied the transport, thus attempting an evasion of tax due to the Government. The said defalcation warrants imposition of penalty on the dealer at maximum of twice the amount of tax sought to be evaded. The transporter too has a liability to ensure due compliance of the provisions of the Act, and hence, there can be no defect found in the owner of the vehicle being proceeded against for such defalcation. This is the proceeding contemplated under Section 69. If the dealer and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
