TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned and used and therefore part of the consignment is from one unit and part of the consignment is from the another unit, though on the same day it was consigned - Thus, serial number depends on the book used. Notice to assessee of alleged contravention – Held that:- On perusal of records it is clear, the officer has passed the impugned order on 6.4.2013 after collecting the penalty on 27.3.2013, but perused the impugned order imposing penalty later which is described as vitiated and being in contravention of Section 53(12)- The procedure contemplated u/s 53(12) pre supposes that the notice need to be issued to show cause, and if it is found no insufficient cause regarding the alleged violation is shown, penalty could be imposed - There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.13067 dated 12.03.2003 for Rs. 2,16,240/-. Both invoices were covered by single LR Bearing No. 33634116 dated 12.3.2013 of M/s. Safe Express Pvt. Ltd., covering the value of Rs. 15,21,840/-. The petitioner claims that it had generated two separate E-sugams before the commencement of the movement of the goods and one E-sugam bearing No. 10920295209 and another E-sugam No. 10210295331 dated 12.3.2013 were also available. 4. It is alleged that when the goods along with relevant documents entered the State of Karnataka it was first checked at Bagepalli check post and the officer in-charge verified the documents and the goods and being satisfied with the documents, permitted the petitioner to continue the transportation of the goods into t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner is before this Court. 8. The petitioner's counsel would submit that petitioner was bona fide transporting the product and had presented valid documents and the same was checked at the entry point at Karnataka and no contravention was found. He submits that respondent intercepted the vehicle at the premises of the petitioner on the presumption that the documents are not genuine and the two invoices are doubtful and levied penalty. In this regard the petitioner would also submits that as regard the doubt about the difference in the Sl. No. of invoices the petitioner has instruction to submit the consignor has more than one units from where the products is supplied depending upon its availability at each counter, and separ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax. He submits that none of these documents were available when the vehicle was intercepted and the petitioner voluntarily paid the penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- and the petitioner cannot now question the validity of the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner's vehicle was released after payment of penalty which itself shows acceptance of penalty imposed. 13. Though the learned standing counsel has taken such a stand to support the impugned order, it is material to note that the impugned order is passed under the provisions of Section 53(12) of the KVAT Act, 2003. The procedure contemplated therein has to be followed which envisages that the officer in charge of a check post or a barrier or any other officer in respect of any cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
