Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2012 (3) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Clothing Ltd., and M/s Indus League Clothing Ltd., and other companies. The fabric is received from these clients to convert the same into readymade garments and deliver to them after collecting job work charges. On 28/01/2004, the assesse had dispatched 1084 'arrow' brand shirts to M/s Arvind Clothing Ltd., along with the delivery challans bearing Nos. 400 and 401 and these goods were endorsed in Form 39-C to other customer namely M/s Indus League Clothing Ltd., who is also a client of the assesse. These goods were checked by mobile squad and detained in the absence of valid documents. Since there was violations of the provisions of Section 28-A(2) of the Act, penalty was levied under Section 28-A(2) of the Act at Rs. 1,81,462/- Aggrieved ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... day the goods were seized, the provision regarding penalty did not provide for imposition of minimum penalty. Therefore, this Court was justified in reducing it to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as it was satisfied that the violation was purely technical in nature. In view of the amendment that judgment has no application to the facts of this case. 4.   Per contra, the learned Counsel for the assesse submitted that the Tribunal has looked into the two judgments produced by the assesse and was convinced that the violation is purely a bonafide mistake.  There was no intention to evade tax. In fact, the correct documents were produced. In those circumstances, the very imposition of penalty itself was not justified. He also contended th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... shall for the purpose of Section 13 be deemed to be an amount due under the Act; * Before levying any penalty under this sub section, the officer shall give the person-in -charge of the goods vehicle or boat or carrier, or bailee, or a dealer registered under the Act, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Explanation - Where the destination of the goods to be delivered in the State is not less than  one hundred kilometres, from the check post or barrier or any other place at which the goods vehicle or boat is intercepted, reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be a period of not less than ten days. ]" 6.   The instant case falls under Section 28A(2) i.e., when the vehicle carrying the goods ....