TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....written. The particulars of the consignee at Bangalore were also not written in the delivery note and sale bill. A notice was issued to the driver, who was the person-in-charge of the vehicle. It is explained that since there was failure of power supply, the sale bill and delivery note were handwritten. The assessee also produced the materials to show that the sale was not in the nature of inter-State sale and it was a branch transfer. The check-post authorities rejected the explanation and levied penalty. In appeal, the Joint Commissioner confirmed the order of levy of penalty. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the transaction was only the branch transfer and not interState sale and thus set aside the penalty lev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dispatching the goods on November 27, 2007, the power supply was disrupted at the branch and hence the documents were hand written and also serial number in form JJ was hand written in the peculiar situation with no intention to evade any taxes. The appellant had also urged that the TIN of the appellant was self printed on the reverse of the branch transfer note along with all the State tax identification numbers and the place of delivery disclosed in the documents is belonging to the appellant himself and all the transactions are accounted in the books of accounts and had also urged that as per the law laid down in the case of Supreme Industries Limited v. State of Karnataka reported in [1987] KLJ 34 (Tribunal Supplement)-mere non-mentioni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and that it is permissible for an assessee to furnish documents even before the appellate authority and the revenue should not act too technically while rejecting the documents. In the instant cases the learned first appellate authority has failed to consider all the documents placed by the appellant before him involving bona fides of the appellant as well as genuineness of the transactions both of which were initially doubted by the check-post officer. Further, the honourable High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shyam Textiles (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax [1994] 94 STC 349 (Karn) has held that 'levy of penalty under section 28A was not maintainable just for the reason that the delivery note tendered before the check p....