9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein is M/s. Pragati Gold Pvt. Ltd., whose employee, Sri. Krishnakumar Choudhari, was apprehended outside the Cochin International Air Port on his arrival from Mumbai on 4.5.2016. When apprehended, he was found in possession of 796 pieces of different gold ornaments weighing 12700.960 grams valued at Rs. 3 crores. Since he was not carrying any document as prescribed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (for short 'KVAT Act') for the purposes of transporting the said quantity of gold ornaments and he was found to be not a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, a notice in form 17A was issued demanding security deposit of Rs.40 lakhs and tax amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs. Pursuant to a representation made by him, the value of ornaments wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that but for his apprehension, there would have been an evasion of tax due to the State. With regard to the contention of the petitioner regarding reduction in the quantum of penalty, inter alia, on the ground that the gold that was brought by it into Cochin was taken back to Mumbai on the same day, the Tribunal found that no legally valid documents had been produced either before the authorities below or before the Tribunal to establish that the ornaments had been taken back to Mumbai. 4. In the revision before us, it is the submission of Sri. Satish Murthi, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal did not consider the fact that a refund application had been preferred by the petitioner before the intelligence officer fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dication done by the intelligence officer and a belated adjudication at this point in time would serve no purpose. 6. After hearing the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal for a re-examination of two issues, namely, (i) whether the gold ornaments brought into Cochin by the petitioner were in fact taken back to Mumbai by the petitioner on the same day, as contended; and (ii) whether the gold ornaments brought into Cochin by the petitioner fell within the ambit of the term "baggage" for the purposes of the Explanation I to S. 46 (3) of the Act. We say so because it is not in dispute that in respect of the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs that was paid by the petitioner towards alleged tax due o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
