2010 (9) TMI 963

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id not have documents like form VAT-505 or form VAT-515. A showcause notice was issued to the appellant to establish the legality of the movement of goods without the mandatory form VAT-505. However, the respondent did not reply immediately. On the other hand, the owner of the vehicle sought time on the ground that he was not getting any information from the appellant, therefore, he must be allowed to unload the goods at his godown. The above proposed imposition of tax and penalty was made known to one Mr. Shivakumar, who was incharge of the appellant-company. Later on, a letter dated September 21, 2005 was sent saying that inspite of contacting M/s. Kennametal India Ltd., to discharge the proposed penalty, it was not responded. In the mean....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sidered as special commodity and the consignor/transporter is required to carry VAT delivery note in form No. 505 or VAT-515 in addition to the invoice or bill of sale. The transporter was not carrying any such documents in VAT-505 or VAT-515. He has contravened the provision of section 53(2) of the KVAT Act, 2003 with deliberate intention and wilful attempt to evade the taxes due to the Government. He found that there was violation of the provisions of the said section of the said Act, which also amounts to violation of statutory requirement of law. 1. The honourable High of Karnataka in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited, Bangalore v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone 1, Bangalore [2001] 124 STC 321 (Karn); [2001] 51 E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant, hence, it was not a transaction falling under rule 157(1)(a) of the KVAT Rules of 2005. Therefore, the concerned notification of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes did not apply to the facts of the said case. After taking into consideration the documents and also the material placed by the concerned authorised officer, the revisional authority opined that the documents submitted did not specifically prove that the vehicle was carrying the rejected goods because the invoices were also raised by the present appellant as consignor in the name of Sri Enterprises as consignee. We have secured the original file from the Department as well. On perusal of these records, we note that at the check-post when they verified the vehicle,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upted. According to the appellate authority the rejected goods were sent back to the consignee and it was not an inter-State sale. If at all the said goods were transported as a result of rejection of goods to Sri Enterprises, there ought to have been some correspondence between the present appellant M/s. Kannametal Widia and Sri Enterprises and therefore, they were carrying the goods. None of the said correspondence is placed on record and it would be difficult to accept that they were transporting the rejected goods and it was not inter-State sale. On the other hand, we also note another deficit of form VAT-505 was not accompanying the goods and only a invoice raised as if certain rejected goods were sent to Sri Enterprises by the appell....