TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds penalty for VAT Act violation, despite petitioner's plea for reduction.</h1> <h3>Vinco Colour and Ceramics Versus State of Karnataka</h3> Vinco Colour and Ceramics Versus State of Karnataka - [2012] 49 VST 207 (Kar) Issues:Violation of section 53(2) of the Act leading to imposition of penalty by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore, upheld by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.Analysis:The petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the penalty imposed for violating section 53(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The goods vehicle, carrying ceramic vitrified tiles for an inter-State sale, was intercepted near Bangalore. The consignee directed the driver to take the vehicle to the city, leading to a violation of the Act. The Joint Commissioner imposed a penalty of two times the duty leviable, which was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the violation was unintentional and requested a reduction in the penalty, citing section 53(12)(a)(i) which limits the penalty to one and a half times the duty payable.The petitioner relied on a judgment stating that the levy of penalty is justifiable only if the cause shown for non-production of documents is found to be insufficient. However, the Government Advocate argued that there was an admitted violation of section 53(12), justifying the minimum penalty of two times the duty. The Court carefully considered the arguments and examined the material on record. It was evident that the petitioner had indeed violated the Act by not stopping at the check-post and traveling 20 kms further before interception. As per section 53(12)(a)(ii), the penalty imposed should not exceed three times the tax leviable, thus justifying the penalty of two times the duty leviable.The Court found that the decision cited by the petitioner's counsel was not applicable to the present case due to the admitted facts of the violation. Therefore, there was no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, and the revision petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
