9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that but for the detection, the petitioner might have well evaded his tax liability by clandestinely selling the consignment of jewellery within the State of Kerala. The imposition of a penalty on him in that event would have been acceptable. In the instant case however, we find that it is admitted by the Commercial Tax Officer at the Check Post in Walayar that the very goods that were brought by the petitioner from Mumbai to Cochin were taken back in their entirety to Mumbai via Coimbatore. The document produced by the petitioner as Annexure IV along with the O.T. Revision sufficiently corroborates the said fact. As a matter of fact, there was no sale occasioned of the jewellery items brought by the petitioner from Mumbai to Cochin withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrival at Cochin airport, the consignment was detained by the Authorities of the Commercial Tax Department, who found that the petitioner was not carrying the requisite declarations in Form 8FA as mandated by Rule 66(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The petitioner was therefore served with a notice under Section 47 (6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ('the Act' for short), proposing a penalty for attempted evasion of tax. On being served with the said notice and before exiting from the airport, the petitioner generated the necessary Form 8FA to cover the consignment that was brought by him from Mumbai and the said declaration was submitted before the Authority. Later on, he was also served with a notice under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a penalty on him. 4. As regards the proceedings under Section 67 of the Act, we find that the Intelligence Officer before whom the petitioner states that he had produced a copy of the document cited as Annexure IV, overlooked the same and confirmed a penalty equal to twice the tax allegedly sought to be evaded by the petitioner. In his further appeal before the First Appellate Authority although the petitioner once again raised the said contention with regard to the return of the jewellery items back to Mumbai, the same was not considered by the First Appellate Authority who proceeded to confirm the penalty. The same was the fate even before the Appellate Tribunal which also did not consider the factum of actual return of the goods brough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceptable. In the instant case however, we find that it is admitted by the Commercial Tax Officer at the Check Post in Walayar that the very goods that were brought by the petitioner from Mumbai to Cochin were taken back in their entirety to Mumbai via Coimbatore. The document produced by the petitioner as Annexure IV along with the O.T. Revision sufficiently corroborates the said fact. 7. Under the said circumstances, we find that as a matter of fact, there was no sale occasioned of the jewellery items brought by the petitioner from Mumbai to Cochin within the State of Kerala. We are therefore of the view that, although at the stage of determining the penal liability of the petitioner under Section 67 of the Act, the State was justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
