TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of it being a sale in transit from the documents. Regarding penalty, contention of the petitioner is that since there was no deliberate disregard of statutory obligations, it is a case where no penalty was imposeable - Held that:- This argument again has no merit. - the petitioner, though adjournment had been sought for explaining apparent dichotomy in documents which had raised suspicion on genuineness of documents and for furnishing original G.R., no one came forward resulting in conclusion of proceedings ex-parte against the petitioner. Unlike in the cited authority, the petitioner in the present case had played hide and seek with the Assessing Officer. Power of the AO - held that:- it is clear enough that the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an order with M/s The Mysore Kirloskar Limited, Harihar (Karnataka) (hereinafter mentioned as Harihar party) on 29.7.1989 for supply of a Kirloskar lathe machine. As per order of the petitioner, Harihar party despatched the machine on 4.1.1990 wherein G.R. was drawn with destination as M/s Steel Strips Wheels Limited, Somalheri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, in the State of Punjab, (hereinafter mentioned as Rajpura party). On receiving this information, the petitioner company in turn had raised invoice on Rajpura party on 9.1.1990 and had negotiated the documents through State Bank of Patiala by endorsing the G.R. in favour of Rajpura party so as to enable it to retire the documents from the bank after making payment. Rajpura party re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 15.3.1990 (Annexure P-3). Even two consecutive appeals preferred by the petitioner bore no fruitful result for it. 8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no attempt to evade tax and it was an inter-State sale and thus no penalty was leviable. Having remained unsuccessful at the legal hustings upto the Tribunal, the petitioner has claimed that no sales tax under the State Act is involved as the petitioner and Rajpura party are registered dealers and the Rajpura party was entitled to make purchase of the machine. It is also claimed that entire matter was misconstrued by the Assessing Officer as also by the Appellate Authorities. It is argued further that Section 14-B (7) of the State Act does not cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . To make it a case of inter-State sale, it is necessary to establish that first purchaser sells the goods during their movement from one State to another. In the present case, facts as also their effect is entirely different. 14. When the goods had moved from Harihar party, it had disclosed the destination at Rajpura. Rajpura party, as per the petitioner, is the second purchaser. It is, however, clear from the documents that goods right from the very start had been booked to be delivered at Rajpura to the second purchaser. It is not the case that the goods were booked for Ludhiana and during transit, by making endorsement on the documents, were sold and, therefore, delivered to the second purchaser. 15. In addition, not only the G.R. b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Brij Bassi Hitech Udyog Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others 1997 (3) P.L.R. 538, claim of the petitioner is that the Tribunal had not recorded any reasons in support of its conclusion that the imposition of penalty was justified. It is contended that there is complete non-application of mind. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had not only discussed the factual matrix but had also recorded reasons for imposition of the penalty by the Assessing Officer confirmed by the lower Appellate Authority which had also not found it to be a case of non-leviability of penalty. 19. Contention of the petitioner is that since there was no deliberate disregard of statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re pointed out which are as under: (i) Gate Pass is dated 4.1.90. It is in the name of M/s Steel Strips Wheel Ltd. Samalheri and not in favour of the petitioner; (ii) G.R. is dated 29.12.89 and there are so many over- -writings on the G.R. which created doubt that it is a fictitious document; and, (iii) Invoice is dated 30.12.89. 21. Thus particulars of these three documents did not match with each other. Gate Pass is prepared first, then bill is prepared and after this G.R. is prepared last of all, but in the instant case, reverse was the position. 22. Relevant portion of the adjudication made for imposing penalty (Annexure P-3) is reproduced as below: Moreover the delaying method adopted by the dealer clearly shows his intent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
