TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 (henceforth referred to as 'the KVAT Act' for short) are filed challenging the common order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in S.T.A.Nos.546-554/2015. By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Assessment Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority imposing a penalty under Section 53(12) of the KVAT Act. 2. The petitioner is a transporter who accepts consignment for delivery of goods to various parts of India. In the instant case, the petitioner claimed that it was engaged by M/s. Sushil Trading Company, New Delhi to transport goods to M/s. King Sales Corporation, Salem at Tamil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as intercepted on 13.08.2015 at Bangalore University premises, Mysore road and physical verification of the goods inside the vehicle revealed that the (i) description (ii) Brand (iii) value did not correspond with the declarations made in the invoice and the lorry receipts. Hence, the tendered documents were not accepted as genuine. Since the driver of the vehicle did not produce the documents as prescribed under Section 53(2) of the KVAT Act, a penalty order under Section 53(12) of the KVAT Act was passed after issuing prescribed notices to the driver of the vehicle and after ascertaining the market value of the actual goods that were transported. The respondent also found that the transit pass in respect of the consignment was not obtaine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing the procedure for showing cause. 5. Later, the petitioner appealed against the order of penalty before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals) -3, Bengaluru who dismissed the appeals. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the petitioner filed separate appeals before the Tribunal, which were also dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2015. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, these revision petitions are filed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of transactions involving movement of goods across different states, including the State of Karnataka, the provisions of Section 54 of the KVAT Act would apply. He contended that the consigner a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cles in question from entry check post at Shiradon, Bijapur stating that the goods were in transit from Delhi to Salem through Karnataka. The Commercial Tax Officer had called upon for the confirmation of the details of consigner and consignee and on investigation with the authorities of the Delhi Trade Tax, they confirmed that M/s. Sushil Trading Company was non-existent while registration of M/s. King Sales Corporation was cancelled on 04.08.2014. The petitioner could not dispute the above factual aspect. The petitioner could also not dispute the fact that the description, Brand and value of the actual goods transported did not correspond with the declarations made in the invoice and the lorry receipts. It is also seen that in STRP Nos.83....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m and lesser penalty can be levied. The legislature thought it fit to specify a fixed rate of penalty and not give any discretion in lowering the rate of penalty. The penalty so fixed is meant to be a deterrent and we do not see anything wrong in this. The quantum of penalty under the circumstances enumerated in Section 78(5) cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as illegal. The legislature in its wisdom has thought it appropriate to fix it at 30% of the value of goods and it had the competence to so fix. As held by this Court in Rai Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar [8 AIR 1963 SC 1667] at SCR p.910: "The objects to be taxed so long as they happen to be within the legislative competence of the legislature can be taxed by the legislature accord....