2018 (8) TMI 1326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t', for short). We need not labour much on the specific facts, since the defalcation is admitted. Detention was made of a vehicle transporting taxable goods, timber. On verification, it was found that there were no documents supporting the transport. Proceedings were initiated and penalty was imposed under Section 47 on the petitioner as dealer and again under Section 67, on the dealer itself in his capacity as owner of the vehicle. 2. The petitioner/dealer had a contention that the lorry was half loaded on the previous night and in the morning, checking was carried out by the Intelligence Squad in the premises of the petitioner and then directed the vehicle to be taken to the Police station. The Department counters with the assertio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... imposed with a like penalty to the extent of two times the tax sought to be evaded. In the present case, the owner of the vehicle was the dealer himself. It was hence, proceedings was initiated against the dealer in his capacity as owner and a penalty imposed again, at twice the tax sought to be evaded. The Tribunal upheld the proceedings taken but interfered with the penalty to the extent of reducing it to Rs. 1,00,000/- from Rs. 1,85,930/-, as imposed by the adjudicating officer. 5. We are of the opinion that the question of law has to be answered against the assessee. Merely because the dealer himself is the owner of the vehicle, it cannot be said that the proceedings under Sections 47 and 69 of the Act cannot be taken simultaneously....