TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. In so far as the contention that the respondent authorities were not empowered to check the goods that were in transit inside the State of Karnataka, it is relevant to note that Section 53 of the KVAT Act is devised to check cases of evasion of tax by erecting check posts or barriers at such places that they deem fit - In the present case, the petitioner being a transporter is deemed to be the owner of the taxable goods and is bound to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Nadu. The petitioner claimed that when the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-30-AW-198, TN-30-AV-88 entered the State of Karnataka, the driver of the vehicles furnished the prescribed documents for issuance of the transit pass. The petitioner claimed that the authorities at the border check post examined the documents and thereafter, affixed the check post seal on the documents and allowed the driver to continue the on road journey through the State of Karnataka. It is claimed that the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 obtained at the first entry check post in Karnataka. 4. In so far as the case in STRP No.90/2018 is concerned, the petitioner herein was the carrier of goods that were apparently consigned by Sri Vaari Traders, Salem to Nirvam Traders, Delhi. The vehicle carrying the goods bearing registration No. KA-02-A-1601 was intercepted on 27.09.2014 on Mysore road, Bengaluru. The driver of the vehicle failed to furnish any documents relating to the consignment. Though the proprietor of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 and consignee have confirmed the genuineness of the transaction and have filed the copies of the registration certificates before the Commercial Tax Officer (Vigilance)-8. Therefore, the respondent had no power to levy penalty in respect of the goods in question. He further contended that the alleged non-existence of the consigner and consignee at their place of business would not result in any tax implication and therefore the imposition of penalty was not warranted. In so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute 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 and 84/2018 though the vehicle number mentioned in transit pass was RJ111EJ5366 but the vehicles carrying the goods at the time of surrendering the transit pass were different namely Nos.TN-30-AW-198, TN-30-AV-88. The Hon'ble Apex Court in almost identical circumstances held in STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER V.S D.P.METALS reported in (2002) 1 SCC 279 as follows: 32. Such submission of false or forged documents or declaration at the checkpost or even thereafter ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 according to the exigencies of its needs, because there can be no doubt that the State is entitled to raise revenue by taxation. The quantum of tax levied by the taxing statute, the conditions subject to which it is levied, the manner in which it is sought to be recovered, are all matters within the competence of the legislature, and in dealing with the contention raised by a citizen that the taxing statute contravenes Artitcle 19, courts would naturally be circumspect an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
