9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibility that the petitioner would have carried at least ten times quantity as shown the delivery note. In fact, the assessing officer had only taken ten times, whereas, it is possible that the petitioner would have even carried the full capacity of the truck involved - In fact, the assessing officer had only taken ten times, whereas, it is possible that the petitioner would have even carried the full capacity of the truck. Under these circumstances,we do not think that the petitioner/appellant is justified in contending that the quantum of penalty is excessive. Appeal dismissed. - WA.No. 99 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2013 - A.M. Shaffique And Dr. Manjula Chellur, JJ. JUDGMENT Shaffique, Appeal is filed by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y notes. Petitioner produced the duplicate copy of the delivery note in respect of delivery note No.279219 dt.12.12.1996. The Intelligence Officer found certain discrepancies in the same. 3. In the light of the said finding, genuineness of entries in the original books of account were also verified. 16 delivery notes were identified and the petitioner was called upon to produce the duplicate copies of the same. Apparently, petitioner himself was transporting the goods with his own vehicle. Though sufficient time was granted by the assessing officer, the petitioner could not produce any of those duplicate copies and, W.A.No.99/2008 3 in that view of the matter, the Intelligence Officer formed an opinion that there is substantial discrepan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that as far as delivery note No. 279219 dt.12.12.1996 is concerned, though penalty was imposed on the petitioner, the same had been set aside by the appellate authority and, therefore, the same reasoning cannot be made applicable as far as the 16 delivery notes are concerned. But, it is relevant to note that the Intelligence Officer had called upon the petitioner to produce the duplicate copies of the 16 delivery notes and not even a single copy of the delivery note was produced. Therefore, the Intelligence Officer has no other method other than to find out that there is clear evasion of tax. Since the appellate authority has also on factual circumstances concurred with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record, we do not find any illegality on the part of the assessing officer to come to the conclusion that there was evasion of tax and quantification of tax is also an acceptable formula. The learned counsel for appellant relies upon the judgment of this Court in U.K.Monu Timbers (M/s.) v. State of Kerala [2012(3) KHC111 inorder to indicate that the assessing officer cannot impose penalty on the basis of best judgment whereas, it has to be based on specific particulars. This is not a case where the penalty has been imposed on best judgment. 16 delivery notes were verified by the Intelligence Officer and the quantity as shown in the delivery note and the books of account were verified. There is a clear finding that when the vehicle was havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
