Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (4) TMI 602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . In the instant case, the First Appellate Authority namely, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes based on the material available on record, recorded a finding that goods belonging to a registered dealer of the State whose bonafides are not doubted were moving for the purpose of sale to a registered dealer in the State and the movement of goods was duly supported by invoices which disclose the particulars of the transaction which shows the movement of the goods. It is further been held that the movement of the goods has not been even doubted by the respondents and there is no material on record to indicate an attempt to evade the tax. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - S.T.A. NO.19 OF 2015 C/W S.T.A. NO.18 OF 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ces. The appellant is engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel. The appellant is a registered dealer under the Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the course of the business, iron and steel was dispatched from Hindupur to the appellant by M/s. Meenakshi Bright Steel Bars Private Limited, Hindupur on consignment sale basis under three separate invoices and by three separate lorries. The goods under the transaction were to be received by the appellant at its branch situated at Old Madras Road, Bengaluru. The goods vehicle along with the goods entered in the State of Karnataka were stationed near the entry point to receive e-sugam and also for the drivers to have dinner. The person responsible in the branch office of the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act. 5. The DCCT passed an order dated 19.01.2013 by which penalty was levied only on the ground that at the time of interception, the e-sugam was not tendered and was furnished subsequently. The appellant thereupon filed appeals and the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-4, Bengaluru, by an order dated 31.01.2014 allowed the appeals preferred by the appellant and set aside the order of penalty on the ground that the order passed by the DCCT was not in accordance with law. However, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes invoked the power under Section 64(1) of the Act to review the order passed by the Appellate Authority and by orders dated 27.04.2015, 29.04.2015 and 28.04.2015 restored the order passed by the Depu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the time of interception and therefore, there is violation of Section 53(2) of the Act and the Commercial Tax Officer has rightly imposed penalty and the same ought not to have been interfered by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It is further submitted that the Revisional Authority namely, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has rightly invoked the powers under Section 64(1) of the Act to set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which was erroneous. It is also submitted that the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ought to have appreciated that e-sugam was required to be generated before commencement of the journey. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nee of the goods; (ii) in cases other than those falling under item (i), shall not be less than double the amount of tax leviable but not exceed three times the amount of tax leviable in respect of the goods under transport: [Provided that in respect of any goods on which the rate of tax leviable is less than four per cent, the penalty leviable under sub-clause (ii) shall be equivalent to five times the amount of tax leviable.] 10. Thus, on perusal of Section 53(12)(a) of the Act, it is evident that penalty can be levied only in case where sufficient cause is not shown. In the instant case, the First Appellate Authority namely, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes based on the material available on record, recorded a fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates