Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Clean Foods Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer and Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax

2015 (10) TMI 1298 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Imposition of penalty under Section 53 (12) - movement of goods in the disguise of movement in the course of export to avoid tax liability - Held that:- Invoice dated 07.03.2006 also shows the name of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana. Thus, the invoice is raised in the name of Company situated in India. However, in one of the columns it is mentioned that export is sought to be made to Riyadh. Therefore, prima facie, the documents which were available at the check-post as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the goods were being exported directly by the consignor cannot be countenanced. - Additional Commissioner has rightly recorded the finding of Appellate Authority and restored the penalty imposed in original proceedings. No exception can be taken to the findings recorded and conclusions arrived at by the Additional Commissioner. - Decided against assessee. - S.T. A. NO. 10 OF 2011 - Dated:- 2-6-2015 - RAVI MALIMATH AND P.S. DINESH KUMAR, JJ. For The Appellant H.R. Kambiyavar, Adv. and G. Rabinat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ihal, Distt. Belgaum to Mumbai. The vehicle was intercepted in the check-post at Nipani and a tax of ₹ 2,27,865/- was imposed. A proposition notice was served and after receiving appellant's response, the Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore, vide order dated 12.09.2009 confirmed the proposed penalty of ₹ 75,955/-. Appellant challenged the same before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum Division, Belgaum, who vide order dated 11.10.2006 allowed the appeal a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed this appeal raising the following question of law: "Whether the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I, Bangalore/the third respondent herein was right in invoking the provisions of Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act and set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Belgaum/the second respondent herein?" 3. While admitting this appeal, this Court has framed the following question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri C.S. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the goods were being transported with valid documents, the check-post authorities have illegally imposed the penalty and the same was rightly set aside by the appellate authority. During the course of hearing, he has placed for consideration of this Court, copies of the docum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the learned counsel for appellant submits that since the goods in question were meant for export and it was clearly spelt out in the invoice as such, the respondent-authorities at the check-post were not justified in imposing the penalty so also in the SMR proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. The delivery note clearly indicates the name of the consignor as the appellant and the consignee as Pepsi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the appellant sought to transport goods from Belgaum to Mumbai and the consignee of the goods was M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited, Gurgoan. In the light of the documents produced by the appellant himself which clearly indicate the names of the consignor and consignee are two Indian companies. 8. Perusal of the documents would lead us to an irresistible inference that the transaction is within the country. Therefore, the argument on behalf of the appellant that the goods were be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version