TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f tax has been revised and penalty under section 53(12)(a)(ii) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 has been imposed. The material facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The consignment belonging to the assessee was being transported from Bhatkal to Mangalore comprised of 19,955 kgs. of M.S. tor steel, having purchased the same under Bill Nos. 339, 338 and 340 from M/s. Anzaf Trading Company, Bhatkal. The said M.S. tor steel was being transported to Mangalore in the lorry when intercepted at Udupi check-post on February 7, 2008 it was found that the quantity of the M.S. tor steel found in the lorry was less than the quantity of 19,955 kgs., as that the lorry contained only 16,350 kgs. M.S. tor steel and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f tax under section 53(12)(a)(ii) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the original authority this appeal is filed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the order passed by the original authority, the appellate authority and also the revisional authority and submitted that the deficit in the quantity of M.S. tor steel at the time of inspection has been satisfactorily explained by producing the purchase invoice for having sold the M.S. tor steel en route to Bhatkal to Mangalore at Sheriyar and that the tax collected has already been paid and deposited with the Department. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not produce the invoice for having sold 10,050 kgs. at Syriar en route Bhatkal to Mangalore and only after the show-cause notice was issued the said invoice was produced and therefore the order of the authority setting aside the order of the first appellate authority is justified. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order. However, imposition of penalty at the maximum of thrice the amount payable towards the tax is wholly unreasonable as it is well-settled that mere fact that it is the discretion of the original authority. It is clear from the provisions of section 53(12)(a)(i) and (ii) the penalty leviable should not be less than the rate of tax but subject to maximum of three times the tax and it is the discretion of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|