Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (9) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... b-section (2) of Section 67 provides the burden of proving that any person is not liable to the penalty under Sub-section (1) shall be on such person. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order insofar as it relates to the imposition of penalty under Subsection (2) of Section 67; however, concerning the demand for a security deposit of Rs. 1,38,352/-, thus no security could have been directed to be deposited by the petitioner inasmuch as the goods were not detained which were required to be released after seizure and therefore, the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit a security deposit of Rs. 1,38,352/- is set aside. The petitioner has not deposited the penalty amount of Rs. 1,38,352/-; the Department is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th 144 crates of live chicken. After stopping the vehicle briefly, the driver suddenly fled with the vehicle away through a narrow road without completing further verification and proceedings under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act. It is stated that the Squad chased the vehicle. However, the overtaking of the vehicle was obstructed, and the Officials were obstructed in performing their official duty by throwing crates at the departmental vehicles. 3.1 The vehicle disappeared from the eyesight of the Squad members at the junction. The Squad could not trace the vehicle even after thorough searches and enquiries. A complaint was filed by the Intelligence Officer at Perinthalmanna Police Station on 11.01.2014 alleging clandestine transport of liv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... curity deposit under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act is wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. 5. The 1st respondent, as per the counter affidavit, was part of the mobile Squad, which was assigned the duty of special surveillance for checking the clandestine transport of live chicken on the date of the incident. This court is not deciding on a criminal trial where the probability of the 1st respondent being present at Kolathur is required to be considered. The Court would not doubt the official version unless and until something is brought on record that would completely falsify the stand of the respondent. Therefore, the first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it would not have been possible for the 1st respondent to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (l) has abetted or induced in any manner another person to make and deliver any return or an account or a statement or declaration under this Act or rules made there under, which is false and which he either knows to be false or does not believe to be true, Such authority may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, an amount not exceeding twice the amount of tax or other amount evaded or sought to be evaded where it is practicable to quantify the evasion or an amount not exceeding ten thousand rupees in any other case: Provided that in the case of item (c) above, a minimum penalty of rupees One Thousand shall directed to be paid.": (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where on completion of an as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... demanded a security deposit of the same amount, i.e., Rs. 1,38,352/-. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order insofar as it relates to the imposition of penalty under Subsection (2) of Section 67; however, concerning the demand for a security deposit of Rs. 1,38,352/-, I am of the view that no security could have been directed to be deposited by the petitioner inasmuch as the goods were not detained which were required to be released after seizure and therefore, the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit a security deposit of Rs. 1,38,352/- is set aside. The petitioner has not deposited the penalty amount of Rs. 1,38,352/-; the Department is entitled to recover the said amount along with the applicable i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates