Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 865 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTWhether the Tribunal has power/jurisdiction to reduce the penalty leviable under section 53(12)(a)(ii) of the Act and whether sufficient cause was shown for not carrying the delivery note in form VAT505 with the consignment - Held that:- Appellate Tribunal though confirmed the findings of both the authorities below on the point of default committed by the respondent, reduced the penalty as aforementioned, and in this backdrop, the question, as framed by us, was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In support, she placed reliance upon the unreported judgment of this court [2012 (3) TMI 395 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] (State of Karnataka v. Camellia Clothing Ltd.). In this case, the Division Bench was considering the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, in particular, section 28A(4) thereof. From bare perusal of the provisions contained in section 28A(4) of the said Act, to the extent it is necessary, it is clear that the provisions contained therein are pari materia with the provisions contained in section 53(12)(ii) of the Act. This court after considering the provisions contained therein are parimateria with the provisions contained in section 28A(4), observed that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reduce the penalty/tax overlooking the mandatory provisions contained therein. It is further observed that no discretion is vested with the authority and/or the Tribunal, so as to exercise discretion in imposing tax/penalty less than two times or more than three times the amount of tax leviable in respect of the goods under transport. - From bare perusal of the provisions contained in section 53(12)(a)(ii) of the Act, it is clear that no discretion is vested in the authority or the Appel late Tribunal to either impose less or reduce the penalty less than double the amount of tax leviable under this provision. Having regard to the language employed in this provision, it is clear that the provision is mandatory in nature and no discretion is vested in the Commercial Tax Officer or the Appellate Tribunal to levy less or reduce penalty under this provision. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|