9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Murthy, AGA) O R D E R M/s. Balaji Marketing, the petitioner, has challenged the legality of the order dated 17.6.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru, whereby, the learned Assistant Commissioner, has passed an order under Rule 66(6) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, ('the Rules' for short) and has dismissed the application filed by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. Petitioner claim that, it was a credit sale, and was not a sale made on payment. Therefore, he called M/s. Mahaveer Traders, but no one responded and failed to appear before the Officer. Initially, the goods vehicles were detained at Tumkur; subsequently, transferred to the Commercial Tax Officer at Bengaluru. Thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer('CTO' for short) imposed the penalty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distraint or attachment for the said goods. According to respondent No.2, the warrant of attachment was passed only on the ground that the goods do not belong to the petitioner, but belong to the consignee, namely, M/s Mahaveer Traders. Since M/s. Mahaveer Traders defaulted in paying the VAT, the department was entitled to attach the goods belonging to the consignee. Subsequently, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Constitution of India. 5. However, according to the learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Kamath, the remedy to file an appeal is not an efficacious one. Therefore, the petitioner is justified in filing the present petitions. 6. Heard the learned counsels on the preliminary objection. 7. Mr. Kamath has not been able to explain as to how the remedy prescribed under the Act is not efficaci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
