TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were not offered for verification before the CTO, the vehicle was chased for a distance of 1.5 km., beyond the check-post and stopped for non-production of documents. The CTO did not verify regarding the validity of the bills of sale. But according to the CTO there was contravention of section 53(2)(c) of the KVAT Act, 2003 on account of the failure to stop the goods vehicle and to produce the documents, and then to proceed after verification of the same. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty equal to the amount of tax leviable in terms of section 53(12)(a)(i) of the said Act was levied. According to the appellant-consignor, failure to stop the vehicle at the check-post was not intentional and that the documents, viz., bills of sale are valid and in accordance with law and merely because of the failure to stop the vehicle by the driver would not be a reason to levy penalty as if it is a case of intention to evade tax. Against the said order of penalty levied under section 53(12) dated September 29, 2005, an appeal was preferred before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the said appellate authority after hearing both sides noted that on Septembe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the appellant, the vehicle could not be stopped at the check-post because of the long queue of the vehicles that there was no intention to evade payment of tax and the driver of the vehicle in question had the requisite documents regarding the consignment and therefore, the imposition of penalty for non-stopping of the vehicle is unjustified. Alternatively, he submitted that the penalty which could have been imposed is equivalent to the tax payable and since the consignment in the instant case is industrial cables only four per cent of their value could have been the tax that was payable and therefore, the penalty also could not have been over and above four per cent. He has also submitted that the appellant has recently commenced its operation and therefore, a lenient view be taken in the matter in the absence of any intention to evade payment of tax. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon certain decisions which will be adverted to later on. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that in the instant case there has been a violation of section 53(2)(c) of the Act in view of the fact that the vehicle did not stop at the check-p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(2)(c) of the Act is established and therefore, the penalty under section 53(12) is attracted. If sufficient cause is not made out, the levy of penalty under section 53(12) is attracted. From a reading of section 53(2) of the Act, it is clear that there is a mandatory duty on the part of the driver of the vehicle to stop the vehicle at the check-post and also to submit a copy of the bill of sale pertaining to the sale in the industrial trade and to carry another copy of the bill until termination of movement of the goods. In this context, it is of relevance to refer to section 159 of the KVAT Rules which also mandates that the driver or any person in charge of the goods vehicle shall stop the vehicle at the check-post or a barrier and keep it stationary for as long as it required by the officer-in-charge of the check-post or barrier and allow examination of the goods in the vehicle and inspection of all the records connected with the goods in the vehicle and after examination of the goods by the officer, the owner or other person in charge of the goods vehicle has to deliver to such officer copies of the goods vehicle record, trip sheet or log book and also the tax invoice, bil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore [1997] 107 STC 568 (disposed of on June 16, 1997 as S.T.A. No. 20 of 1997) wherein it was held that there was a technical violation of law and therefore, the imposition of penalty could not be sustained, as the guilty intention on the part of the assessee or taxpayers in not complying with the statutory requirements was not present. However, in the instant case, the check-post officer, had to chase the vehicle and stop the same for inspecting the consignment and there has been violation of the provisions of section 53(2)(c) of the Act. Hence the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the case of Nath Steel & Non-Ferrous Re-Rolling Mills v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [1997] 104 STC 118 (Karn) where the appellate authority had satisfied itself that there was no intention to avoid the said provision as it is a statutory duty cast on the dealer. Therefore, reliance placed by the counsel for the appellant on the said decision to take a lenient view in the matter cannot be accepted as the vehicle had to be chased for 1½ kms. before it could be stopped. In the instant case, however, taking the tot....