TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (7) TMI 675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tibele. At that time the car was found to be carrying 11,400 watch dials as against 7,185 watch dials noted in the delivery note bearing No. 41103 in form No. 39. The first respondent having found that there was variance between the delivery note referred to above and the goods carried in the van, regarding the number of dials, notice under section 28A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short) was issued proposing a penalty of Rs. 86,482. The revision petitioner did not show any cause to the notice. Consequently a penalty of Rs. 86,482 was levied and communicated to him on August 9, 1992. 3.. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order, annexure B, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce tendered by the petitioner before the appellate authority is improper and that the order impugned is otherwise illegal and should be set aside. 6.. The facts are not in dispute and they are governed by section 28A of the Act as it stood at the time of interception in question. On the day the interception took place, admittedly there was variance between the number of watch dials mentioned in form No. 39 and the actual number being transported. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought to contend that there was no basis for the first respondent to have imposed a penalty of Rs. 86,482 and that the first respondent could at best have imposed a penalty on the number of watch dials actually transported in excess of what was men....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show that the goods in question have already suffered the single point tax under this Act, no penalty shall be leviable." The power of the officer in-charge of the check-post to levy penalty depends on the findings regarding the infractions enumerated in subsection (4) of section 28A of the Act. Admittedly, the revision petitioner carried form No. 39 and disclosed a certain number of watch dials but actually there was excess watch dials. It is clear therefore, that the first respondent had the factual basis for imposing the penalty as the particulars furnished in form No. 39 did not tally with the goods actually being transported at the time of interception. 7.. That the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard regard....