CST & VAT: Where a transporter was transporting goods from Surat to Hubli and instead of unloading goods at Hubli, it carried vehicle beyond Hubli, there was contravention of provisions of section 53(2)(b)
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 242 (Karnataka)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
State of Karnataka
v.
RCI Logistics (P.) Ltd.*
N. KUMAR AND B. MANOHAR, JJ.
SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2012
JULY 3, 2014
Section 53 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with rule 157 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Penalty - For contravention of provisions of section 53 - Assessee, a transporter, was transporting goods from Surat to Hubli - Instead of unloading goods at Hubli, driver carried vehicle beyond Hubli and parked same on Kolar road at Siddlaghatta, which was 50 Kms. away from border of Tamil Nadu - On interception of above vehicle, driver produced before Assessing Authority all documents to show that goods were transported from Surat to Hubli - He did not possess any document to show transportation of goods from Hubli to Siddlaghatta - He also stated that he was directed to deliver goods at Trichy in Tamil Nadu - Whether there was contravention of provisions of section 53(2)(b) by assessee - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, levy of penalty upon it under section 53(12) was justified - Held, yes [Para 15][In favour of revenue]
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 242 (Karnataka)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
State of Karnataka
v.
RCI Logistics (P.) Ltd.*
N. KUMAR AND B. MANOHAR, JJ.
SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2012
JULY 3, 2014
Section 53 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with rule 157 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Penalty - For contravention of provisions of section 53 - Assessee, a transporter, was transporting goods from Surat to Hubli - Instead of unloading goods at Hubli, driver carried vehicle beyond Hubli and parked same on Kolar road at Siddlaghatta, which was 50 Kms. away from border of Tamil Nadu - On interception of above vehicle, driver produced before Assessing Authority all documents to show that goods were transported from Surat to Hubli - He did not possess any document to show transportation of goods from Hubli to Siddlaghatta - He also stated that he was directed to deliver goods at Trichy in Tamil Nadu - Whether there was contravention of provisions of section 53(2)(b) by assessee - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, levy of penalty upon it under section 53(12) was justified - Held, yes [Para 15][In favour of revenue]
No comments:
Post a Comment