9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A(4) of the Act was set aside with a further direction to the Check Post Officer to refund to the respondent-assessee the penalty collected from them. 1.1 The appeals before the Tribunal were directed against the order dated 28th November 2005 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals) (for short 'the First Appellate Authority') in KST.AP. Nos.253-255/2005-06 under Section 28-A(4) of the Act by the respondent-assessee. The Appellate Authority by this order disposed of the appeals with certain modification. 2. In these revision petitions, the petitioner has formulated the following questions of law for our consideration, which read thus: "1. Whether on the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vishakapatnam Steel Plant raised in favour of the assessee i.e. M/s.Shilpi Wire Rope Private Limited with the address of the assessee at Bangalore. When the Officer verified those documents, he found that they were not valid documents for transportation of goods from the premises of the assessee M/s.Shilpi Wire Rope Private Limited, KIADB Industrial Area, Attibele, Bangalore to the premises of M/s. Miki Steel Works Private Limited, Attibele where the goods were unloaded. In view thereof, the Officer issued goods consignment endorsement to confirm the transaction. It is very interesting to note that in response thereto, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the Check Post Officer and agreed to pay the penalty amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 91. We would like to reproduce the cryptic reasons recorded by the Tribunal for allowing the appeals filed by the assessee, which read thus: '9. Issue No. 1 Sec 28-A(2) of KST Act prescribes documents to be carried by the owner or person-in-charge of goods vehicle. All the three goods vehicles were checked at the time of unloading of the goods at M/s. Miki Steel Works Pvt Ltd., and noticed that the appellant produced the documents issued by M/s.Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., Bangalore to the appellant, whereas the goods were being taken for unloading at the different place. Further it was observed that there were no documents like Form-II or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.II before the Appellate Authority by the assessee for the first time. Even, the reliance placed on the judgment in N. Subramanya, on the face of it, was misplaced. 8. Section 28-A(2) of the Act provides that the owner or person in-charge of goods vehicle is supposed to carry certain documents, as specified in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-Section (2) of Section 28-A. Admittedly, none of the documents specified in sub-Section (2) were produced by the assessee when the vehicles were intercepted or before the Check Post Officer. Section 28-A(4) provides that the Officer in-charge of Check Post, in case of any contravention, or non-compliance with provisions of sub-Section (2) or (3) or 3(A) or 3(B), for which sufficient cause is not furnished, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
