2018 (6) TMI 1405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tagens India (P) Ltd., vs. The State of Karnataka) by which the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant-assessee on account of minor discrepancy between e-Sugam and the Invoice with respect to value and quantity of goods. 2. Accepting the explanation given by the appellant-assessee that the said discrepancy occurred on account of the feeding of the particulars prior to the final invoice raised by the consignor and the minor discrepancy occurred on account of bona fide reasons and therefore, the Tribunal in exercise of its discretion deleted the penalty. The reasons given by the learned Tribunal are quoted below: "We have carefully perused the contents of the file and considered the submission of the counsel for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he bill of sale is 9110 kg and the quantity mentioned in e-sugam is 9800 kg. To this difference there is an explanation in para no.11 of the appeal memo. Under the circumstances, observation by the CTO in his order stating that the goods under transport which was covered by e-sugam bearing no.8103441491 is defected and the sale is not pertain to the transaction thereby breached sec.53(2)(A)(b) of the KVAT Act, 2003 (53(2)(a)(b) of the KVAT Act 2003) and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore notification Adcom (I & C)/PA/CR- 31/2011-12  dated  23.12.2011  and  you have made attempt to evade tax due to the Government......................etc., is the erroneous conclusion of the CTO. In the light of the fact that ....