TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Divya Ravindran ORDER K. Vinod Chandran, 1. The revision petitioner is the State which challenges the order of the Kerala Value Added Tax Additional Appellate Tribunal in a batch of cases, where security deposit was demanded on detention of goods and then penalty was imposed. There were, in fact, ten cases on which penalty was imposed in a particular assessment year. The preliminary ground ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n each of the instances was different and distinct. We do not have the files of the earlier years. But we see from the order of the Tribunal that in every case, it was found that the delivery note was not accompanying the transport. The State thought it fit to file appeal only from one of the said penalty orders. We do not think that is a reason to non-suit the State in the revision filed by them ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial No. 43 of the Third Schedule indicates a number of items, which come under the common family of ferrous and non ferrous metals and alloys; non ferrous metals such as aluminium, copper, zinc and extrusions of those. In such circumstances, iron scrap which is the common terminology used in the market cannot be treated as goods distinct or different from iron. 4. The further contention is with r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding but however, it can easily be inferred that the imposition of penalty was on account of there being no delivery note accompanying the transport which was a clear attempt to evade tax. We, hence, do not find any reason to accept the claim of the assessee. However, we see from the order that there has been an estimation made of the value of the goods to demand security deposit. This is without ....