TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernels. In the course of its business, it has imported 3,500 bags of raw cashewnuts from a foreign country. To demonstrate this aspect of the matter, the petitioner has not only produced the bill of entry dated October 18, 2001 but also the certificate issued by the clearing agent both before this court as well as before the authorities under the Act. Out of the goods imported, the petitioner was transporting 280 bags of cashew kernels to the assessee's own factory situate at Kuzhithura in Tamil Nadu for the purpose of processing. The goods vehicle was detained by the check-post authority at Amaravila on October 20, 2001. After verification of the documents produced by the person in charge of the goods vehicle/driver of the vehicle, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a sum of Rs. 1,13,596 for release of the goods vehicle and also the goods transported in the vehicle. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner by its letter dated October 22, 2001, once again had brought to the notice of the check-post authority, that the lapse on the part of the person in-charge of the goods vehicle was wholly unintentional and while getting the photostat copy of the original delivery note, the same had been left in the shop where the originals were xeroxed. The explanation offered by the petitioner is produced along with the revision petition papers. The same is as under: "As per the above notice, 280 bags of imported raw cashew nuts despatched from Cochin Port to our Kuzhithurai depot in Lorry No. but also the certifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the person in charge of the goods vehicle had not only produced the original of the delivery note, but also had explained the reason for not carrying the original of the delivery note. The explanation offered by him is in Malayalam language and therefore, the same is not extracted. The Check-post Officer still was not impressed by the explanation offered by the person in charge of the goods vehicle. Therefore, had directed the person in charge of the goods vehicle to offer security deposit in a sum of Rs. 1,13,596 for release of the goods vehicle and also the goods transported in the vehicle. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner by its letter dated October 22, 2001, once again had brought to the notice of the check-post authority, that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s by the Tribunal. Questioning the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is before us in this revision petition. Sri Kurien Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, would submit, that the orders passed by the authorities under the Act and the Tribunal are not only perverse but also illegal and irregular. Therefore, the said orders require to be interfered with. Sri Muhammed Rafiq, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Revenue, sought to justify the impugned orders. Under section 29(2) of the Act, a dealer is not expected to transport the goods within the State or beyond the State without the documents prescribed under the Act. The documents so prescribed are the sale bill or a delivery ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....person in charge of the goods vehicle to offer security in a sum of Rs. 1,13,596 for release of the goods vehicle and also the goods transported in the goods vehicle. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner had also filed his explanation and in that had reiterated whatever that had been said by the person in-charge of the goods vehicle. In spite of this explanation, the check-post authority had insisted that the petitioner shall offer security as demanded by him in the notice dated October 20, 2001. The Enquiry Officer while holding the enquiry for the purpose of imposing the penalty under section 29A(4) of the Act had issued a notice to the petitioner and this was also replied by the petitioner and in that he had reiterated whatever that....