TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on petitioner could not produce any such documents in discharge of their burden, the penalty order which was confirmed by various authorities including the tribunal, cannot be interfered. We do not think that the revision petitioner was successful in discharging their burden to prove before any of the authorities below that, there was no actual attempt at evasion of payment of tax. We do not think that any legal or sustainable grounds are existing to invoke the revisional jurisdiction vested on this Court under Section 63 of the Act. Revision petition dismissed. - OT. Rev. No. 35 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2019 - MR C. K. ABDUL REHIM AND MR R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ. For The Petitioner : ADVS. SMT. S. K. DE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was initiated under Section 47(2) of the Act demanding security deposit to the tune of ₹ 56,190/-. The goods were released on the petitioner furnishing security as demanded. An enquiry was conducted by the Intelligence officer, as contemplated under Section 47(5) and (6). The revision petitioner contended that the goods transported relates to sale effected to one Mr.Sreedharan Nair, Managing Director, M/s Mallelil Industries Private Ltd., Konni. It was contended that a Bill was actually raised on 17.09.2009, for a total value of ₹ 2,22,535/- and the Bill was handed over to the driver in charge of the vehicle along with the purchase requisition. It is stated that, the purchase requisition is a system generated document prepare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seven days, it was found that the attempt at evasion of payment of tax, by attempting multiple transportation using same set of invoice, stands proved. Having found that the petitioner has failed to disprove the allegation of attempt at evasion of payment of tax, the amount of security deposit was ordered to be converted as penalty under Section 47(6) of the Act. 4. Before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner raised various contentions. But the Appellate Authority found that the vehicle was intercepted at Kalayapuram, Konni, while flying from Thiruvananthapuram to Kottayam and the petitioner had failed to give any proper explanation on this. So also he had failed to explain about the lapse of seven days from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
