2014 (4) TMI 804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 6.4.2013 levying penalty under the impugned order at Annexure-H. 2. The petition has come up for hearing in 'B' group after notice to the respondent who is represented by learned standing counsel Sri V. Girikumar. 3. Heard the counsel for both sides. Perused the records, from which the following contextual facts manifest:              The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of ghutka from one M/S. KAY Flavours Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow. The said purchase was documented under the two invoices i.e. Invoice No.00603 dated 12.03.2003 for Rs. 13,05,600/- and invoice No.13067 dated 12.03.2003 for Rs. 2,16,240/-. Both invoices were covered by single LR Bearing No. 33634116 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he check post i.e. BRCP (IN) as per the provisions under Section 53(12) (c) and (d) of KVAT Act, 2003. 6. The second ground is that the numbers on the two invoice are of different series, though issued by the same consignor. To raise such ground reference is made by the respondent to the Sl. No. of one invoice of 13067 dated 12.3.2013 and another invoice No.00603 dated 12.3.2013 issued by the same consignor namely M/S. Kay Flavours Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow. 7. Besides, the respondent has issued an order imposing penalty directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,48,064/- under Section 53(12) of the KVAT Act, 2003. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner is before this Court. 8. The petitioner's counsel would submit that petitioner was bon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se the officer has passed the impugned order on 6.4.2013 after collecting the penalty on 27.3.2013, but perused the impugned order imposing penalty later which is described as vitiated and being in contravention of Section 53(12) of this Act. 11. Learned standing counsel for the respondent would submit that at the time when the vehicle was intercepted no proper documents regarding consignment was produced. He submits that the vehicle did not carried E-sugam details. 12. The second ground urged is that the burden is on the petitioner to establish compliance of all requirements, that is invoices, generating E-sugam and payment of tax. He submits that none of these documents were available when the vehicle was intercepted and the petitio....