9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 2027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 01.01.2016, the consignment was shown to have left the destination on 01.01,2016 itself. By no stretch of imagination it could have taken more than one day to reach the entry point at Jharkhand, where the consignment was apprehended, which, as per the order passed by the Appellate Authority, was at a distance of only about 270 Kms - The order of the Appellate Authority shows that there is difference in the amount shown in the tax invoice as also in the 'Sugam G'. Even in the tax invoice, the number of the vehicle is missing. In that view of the matter, it could not be held that the non-mentioning of the vehicle number in the tax invoice or in the 'Sugam G' road permit, was not with the intention to evade the tax, and since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.02.2018, passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), in Revision Petition No. DN 12 of 2017, whereby, the revision filed against the appellate order dated 01.03.2016, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) Commercial Taxes, Dhanbad, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the penalty imposed upon him, was dismissed by the Tribunal. 3. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The petitioner who is the driver of a Truck No. HZ 29V-1123, was bringing a consignment of Canopy DG sets from Kolkata to Ranchi. He was having the required road per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein. Finding that these omissions were with the intention to evade the tax, the penalty was imposed on the driver. Taking into consideration the value of consignment at Rs. 5,40,555/-, the amount of tax was fixed as 75,677.70/- and the amount of penalty was fixed three times the amount of tax, i.e., Rs. 2,27,033/-. 4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 18.01.2016 before the Appellate Authority, i.e., Joint Commissioner (Appeal) Commercial Taxes, Dhanbad, by filing Appeal Case No. CK CP VAT-07 of 2015-16, and the Appellate Authority, by order dated 01.03.2016, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, confirming the order of the imposition of penalty upon him. 5. Though the petitioner had not appeared before the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Jharkhand through the entry point which was not mentioned in the road permit. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal, while dismissing the revision application of the petitioner, wrongly placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gulzag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 269, for coming to the conclusion that in the said case it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that carrying the road permit with blank columns in material particulars indicated mens rea. Learned counsel submitted that the facts of the said case is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, in the said case the material particulars like quantity, weight and description of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2003) 7 SCC 492, wherein it has been held as follows:- 23. For constituting a reasonable opportunity, the following conditions are required to be observed: 1. Each party must have notice that the hearing is to take place. 2. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to be present at the hearing, together with his advisers and witnesses. 3. Each party must have the opportunity to be present throughout the hearing. 4. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of his own case. 5. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to test his opponent's case by cross-examining his witnesses, presenting rebutting evidence and addressing oral argument. 6. The hearing must, unless the contrary i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e road permit, which was issued on 01.01.2016, the consignment was shown to have left the destination on 01.01,2016 itself. By no stretch of imagination it could have taken more than one day to reach the entry point at Jharkhand, where the consignment was apprehended, which, as per the order passed by the Appellate Authority, was at a distance of only about 270 Kms. The interception was made after two days in the night of 13.01.2016. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was any breakdown in the vehicle, or there was any other unavoidable reason for this delay. Admittedly, the entry point was shown in the road permit as Behragora, but the truck was intercepted at another entry point at Chirkunda. The order of the Appellate Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
