Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 517 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLaw of estoppel - levy of penalty twice the rate - excess stock found during investigation - Whether the Inspecting Authority was justified in invoking the provision of Section 77 (2) of KVAT Act, 2003 and Sub Section 1(J) of Section 52 of KVAT Act, 2003, under the facts and circumstances of the case? Held that:- The material on record clearly depicts that though the Inspecting Authority issued notice under the provision of Section 77(2) of the KVAT Act, 2003, the appellant who was present at the time of spot inspection did not rise any objections with regard to unaccountable stock found in the premises of the factory and also did not provide any circumstantial reasons for the same and rightly paid the levied penalty - Once the appellant issued cheque for entire amount, the appeal before the appellate authority was not maintainable in view of the law of estoppel, it was unethical for the appellant to file appeal. The Appellate Authority without verifying the original records, proceeded to pass erroneous order. Therefore, penalty imposed under Section 77(2) of KVAT Act, 2003 is in accordance with law - the order passed by the Revisional Authority, the same is in accordance with law. Accordingly, the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal has to be answered in affirmative holding that the Inspecting Authority was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 77(2) of KVAT Act, 2003 and Sub Section 1(J) of Section 52 of KVAT Act, 2003. As soon as notice issued under Section 77(2) of KVAT Act, 2003, immediately seven days time has to be given, but in the present case, notice issued under Section 77(2) of KVAT Act, 2003 to the appellant and he did not filed any objection, nor disputed the contents of the notice and the appellant was ready and willing to pay the penalty and accordingly, paid the penalty levied. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that, there is no proper verification and absolutely, there was no unaccountable stock in the factory premises cannot be accepted. The appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority by this Court in exercise of power under the provisions of Section 66(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - appeal dismissed.
|