AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KB. Navadgi, J.-M/s. Prominent Road Carrier-the Transport Operator, the appellant herein feeling aggrieved by the order dated 24-8-1993 made by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-II, Bangalore has filed this appeal under Section 24(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (''the Act'' for short).
We have perused the record and heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
The facts relating to the matter, leading to the filing of the appeal, relevant for the present purpose briefly stated are as under:
The Commercial Tax Officer, Tumkur Road Checkpost (Inward), conducted a physical verfication of the goods carried in goods vehicle bearing Registration No. HYW 598. It was found transporting S.S. Patta addition to other goods such as stove wicks and two trunks the contents of which were not known. During the physical verification, the driver of the vehicle tendered the G.C. notes bearing Nos. 65084 and 65184. The notes did not tally with the markings as mentioned on the goods (with the documents produced). The Commercial Tax Officer, therefore suspected that the goods transported were different in mark, weight, quality and value than those reflected in the documents tendered by the driver. He rejected the documents on the ground that the same did not relate to the goods actually carried in the vehicle. Hence he proposed to levy a penalty of Rs. 69,300.00 on the estimated value of consignment at Rs. 4,96,000.00. After considering the explanation of the person incharge of the vehicle regarding the value of the consignment, holding that the value was about Rs. 3,30,000.00 he reduced the penalty and levied a sum of Rs. 54,800.00 as penalty. The conclusion reached by the Commercial Tax Officer that there was clear contravention of Section 28-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, attracting the penalty as laid down under Section 28-A(2) is based on consideration of the documents with reference to the goods actually found in the vehicle. It is not based on presumption or mere hypothesis.
In the appeal the DCCT (Appeals), Bangalore Division, Bangalore, cancelled the levy of penalty on the grounds that the Commercial Tax Officer committed an error in not correctly estimating the value of the goods that were being transported and in holding that the documents tendered at the time of checking the goods did not show that they were being consigned to Madras. He also held that the order made by the Commercial Tax Officer suffered from infirmities inasmuch as the goods that were being actually carried in the vehicle were consigned to Madras from Delhi and that the transaction did not fall within the purview of the provisions of the Act.
In the proceedings before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 22-A(1) of the Act, the appellant was issued with show-cause notice. It gave reply. On consideration of the reply and the material, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) set aside the order made by the DCCT (Appeals), and restored the order made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Tumkur Road Checkpost (Inward).
It is seen from the record that in response to the show-cause notice issued, the appellant filed objections contending that the Commercial Tax Officer, Tumkur Road Checkpost (Inward), failed to note that the transaction carrying goods commenced from Delhi that the goods passed through Bangalore for being delivered at the premises of the consignee at Madras and that being so there was no intention to sell or unload the goods in the State of Karnataka. It was also contended that there was no material to show evasion of tax within the State of Karnataka. The appellant relied on several decisions in support of the reply given to the show-cause notice and to support the order made in his favour in the appeal.
The verification of the record made by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as stated in para 7 of the order made by him showed that the goods vehicle when it was subjected to physical verification revealed that there was a difference in documents with reference to the goods being carried. It is on the basis of this verification, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reached the conclusion that the possibility of certain goods being unloaded in the City of Bangalore which were not actually covered by the documents was not excluded. The documents produced, at the time of physical verification, did not relate to the goods being transported on the basis of the documents. Taking into consideration the aforesaid material and the circumstances, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes set aside the order passed by the DCCT (Appeals) and restored the order of levying penalty made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Tumkur Road Checkpost (Inward).
We do not find any infirmity in the order of the first respondent. We therefore maintaining the said order dismiss this appeal.