TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the appeal by observing that respondent No.3 had imposed the penalty after following all the codal formalities - it was the representative of the petitioner who himself before respondent No.3 on 30.8.2013 had not only admitted his mistake but had expressed his readiness to pay the penalty imposed/due without seeking any more opportunity - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - C.R. No. 57 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2017 - Mr. Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Mr. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Sharma and Ms. Bhawana Dutta, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, A.G. with Mr. Anup Rattan and Mr. Romesh Verma, Addl. A.Gs. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge : This revision petition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The petitioner was charged for transportation of the above vehicles and these were to be delivered at its business place for which the services of the transporter, respondent No.4, i.e. Mohan Tractor Private Limited were engaged. While these vehicles were on the way to Ner Chowk, Mandi, respondent N.3, i.e. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority on 25.8.2013 intercepted these vehicles near Ram Shahar, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. On checking, it was found that one out of the aforesaid six vehicles was neither declared electronically nor crossed through any of the multi purpose Barrier (for short MPB Barrier) of the State. 4. Respondent No.3 initiated assessment proceedings for the assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial placed on record. 9. At the outset one needs to note the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court as provided and contemplated under section 48 of the Act, which reads thus: 48. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 45 or under subsection (3) of section 46, may, within 90 days of the 85 communication of such order, apply to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for revision of such order if it involves any question of law arising out of erroneous decision of law or failure to decide a question of law. (2) The application for revision under sub-section (1) shall precisely state the question of law involved in the order, and it shall be competent for the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Daljit Singh, Director M/s Shimla Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Registered office Chandigarh Sector 7-C, Cabin No. 09, SCO 38 in response to the ongoing hearing of the case. He when asked to explain as why the vehicle in question has not been declared on-line or on the MPB Barrier Brotiwala or Baddi while entering into the State of H.P. He admitted that this has happened a grave mistake in the part of their office as well as the driver of the said vehicle. He also regretted that again there was a mistake on the part of the driver as he did not go the any of the MPB of HP State, which attracts penalty u/s 34 (2) (A) of the HP VAT Act, 2005. In the mean time an inquiry was conducted and it was enquired from the the ETO Incharge of MPB Baddi and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid ground was clearly an afterthought as the petitioner took no steps to explain or withdraw the admission by adducing clinching material so as to out way the admission and, therefore, learned first appellate authority committed no irregularity much less any illegality in dismissing the appeal by observing that respondent No.3 had imposed the penalty after following all the codal formalities. 16. As regards the order passed by the learned Tribunal below, it would be noticed that all the contentions raised by the petitioner were dealt with threadbare and it was only thereafter that the levy of penalty upon the petitioner under section 34 (7) of the Act was upheld and whereas the penalty under section 34 (2-A) was set aside. 17. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the release of the goods. 20. We find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner for the simple reason that it was the representative of the petitioner who himself before respondent No.3 on 30.8.2013 had not only admitted his mistake but had expressed his readiness to pay the penalty imposed/due without seeking any more opportunity. 21. The petitioner had at no time approached respondent No.3 for recall of the said order or claimed that the admission so recorded was wrong or that he may be permitted to withdraw the same. 22. The findings recorded by the authorities below are pure findings of facts and no question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
