TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... setting aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mangalore (for short 'the Appellate Authority) and levying penalty under Section 28A(4)(b) of the KST Act. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal as under: The appellant is a registered dealer both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act trading in timber and plywood. On 4.3.2002, he had dispatched two consignments from Mangalore to Bangalore containing 300 plywood sheets in a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-19-C-6655 along with two invoices and two delivery challans. In the first delivery note, the place of delivery was mentioned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authority, they have clearly recorded about the tax collection. There was no attempt to evade tax due to the Government. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority held that the penalty imposed under section 28A(4) of the KST Act is contrary to law and set aside the same by allowing the appeal. 3. After lapse of more than seven years, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax issued a notice dated 30.3.2009 under section 22A(i) of the KST Act to revive the order passed by the Appellate Authority contending that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the government revenue. In pursuance to the said notice, the appellant filed objections contending that the goods were covered by the valid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were the tax suffered goods. The appellant has not violated any of the provisions of section 28A(2)(3) read with rule 23B of the Rules. As a matter of fact, the appellant had delivered the goods at the instructions of the consignee. In the instant case, both the purchaser and the consignee are one and the same. The purchaser had instructed the driver of the lorry to deliver the goods at a place convenient to him. There is no evasion of tax or misrepresentation of facts. The respondent has completely overlooked the delivery notes as well as the invoices. The Appellate Authority, after considering the matter in detail, set aside the penalty imposed by the Commercial Tax Officer. The Revisional Authority without examining the matter in detail ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... part of the goods was to be delivered at Seshadripuram, Bangalore and the remaining goods was to be delivered at Mosque Road, Bangalore. The name of consignee was mentioned as M/s.M M Housing Pvt. Ltd., Infantry Road, Bangalore. Further in the invoice also same thing was mentioned and sale tax has also been levied on the said goods. The main contention of the appellant is that in view of restriction in the movement of lorries at the Mosque Road, the purchaser had instructed to unload the goods at Seshadripuram and in the process of unloading the goods at Seshadripuram, the said vehicle was intercepted by the Authorities and found that the goods were being unloaded violating section 28A(2)(b) & (d) of the KST Act and rule 23B of the Rules a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted on the bill and there is no attempt on the part of the appellant for evasion of tax and the penalty cannot be imposed under Section 28A(4) of the Act on the ground of violation of any of the provisions under Section 28-A(2) of the Act and Section 28(3) of the KST Act read with Rules 23-B of the Rules. On verifying the original records, we found that there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Act. The interest of government is fully protected. We find that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is contrary to law. There is no allegation with regard to evasion of tax. The only allegation is that instead of delivering the goods at Mosque Road, it was unloaded at Seshadipuram Bangalore. Therefore, we find that the order pas....