TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmencement of movement of goods - HELD THAT:- Various contentions raised by the appellant have not been considered. The levy of penalty is not automatic, but is discretionary in nature. Therefore, the matters which have a material bearing on the issue of levy of penalty have not been considered either by the Commercial Tax Officer or by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. Therefore, in the facts of the case, it is deemed appropriate to remit the matter for consideration afresh and to take a decision on the stand taken by the petitioner, supra, by a reasoned order. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and taking note of the submissions made on beha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firming the levy of penalty while the Petitioner complied with the requirements of Section 53(2-A) by entering the stipulated details in the official website of the Commercial Taxes Department and generating E-Sugam much before the commencement of movement of goods? 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act and wholesale distributors of cigaretts for M/s. ITC Limited, Bengaluru. The petitioner has been filing vat monthly returns and discharged applicable taxes within due date. On 06.10.2015, the petitioner dispatched cigarettes of different brands for an amount of ₹ 3,57,61,657/- from the principal place of business in Sheshadripuram to the br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver of the vehicle furnished all the documents prescribed under the law for verification by the check-post officer. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that no discrepancies were found by the check-post officer with regard to the quantity of goods, value of goods and nature of goods and the documents were found in conformity with the requirement as prescribed by law. However, since the driver did not stop the vehicle at the exit check-post in the State of Karnataka, the check-post officer issued notice proposing to levy penalty solely on the ground that the goods were being taken away to the State of Tamilnadu and an apprehension was raised that an attempt was made to evade the taxes. The petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner were not taken into account and in a mechanical manner the order has been passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, First Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in ABHAY SOLVENTS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [(2010) 30 VST 264 (KAR)] and the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in INDORE-KOLHAPUR ROADLINES VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [(1994) 95 STC 141 (MP)]. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this revision petition and the issues involved in this revision petition are, in fact, findings of fact and no perver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the relevant extract of the orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer as well as the Tribunal, it is evident that the following contentions raised by the appellant have not been considered: a. The transaction is one of stock transfer, not involving sale of goods and consequently, the transaction is exempted. b. Since the transaction is exempted, the question of attempt to evade the taxes does not arise at all. c. The driver of the vehicle came to the route for the very first time and took a wrong route by taking the fly-over bridge instead of going below the fly-over bridge, which is a bonafide mistake, devoid of any malafide or ulterior motives. d. The entire details of the transaction was already made known to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remit the matter for consideration afresh and to take a decision on the stand taken by the petitioner, supra, by a reasoned order. 11. In the result, the order dated 15.12.2017, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, referred to supra. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to answer the substantial questions of law involved in this petition. 12. In the result, the petition is disposed. The Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
