Maya Appliances (Private) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Sales Tax (Enforcement-51) and Others

N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes u/s 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It is an admitted fact that the lorry carrying the goods, when it entered Karnataka from Tamil Nadu, though the lorry driver obtained the endorsement from the RTO on the invoices, he has not obtained any endorsement from the Check-post of Karnataka. The material on record also discloses that the documents were not subjected to check in any of the en-route Tamil Nadu check-post also.

The explanation offered is that it is a case of consignment transfer and therefore, there is no tax liability. The driver of the lorry was a new comer. He lacked experience and therefore, he omitted to obtain the endorsement from the check-post. However, the number of invoices is mentioned in all concerned documents and therefore, it is a bona fide mistake. It constitutes sufficient cause and consequently, no penalty could have been imposed. When it is clear from the material on record that the documents carried in the lorry was not tendered at any Check-post in Tamil Nadu en-route to Karnataka and in Karnataka also it was not tendered at the check-post, the motive behind the same is very clear. The Assessing Authority rightly held that it is a clear case of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of law and therefore, it attracts penalty. The 1st Appellate Authority was not justified in setting aside the said order solely on the ground that there was no liability of paying tax. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, invoked suo motu proceedings and set aside the appeal order and restored the order of penalty passed by the Assessing Authority. We do not find any justification to interfere with the order.

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.