TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 602
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) have been filed by the appellant against the orders dated 27.04.2015, 29.04.2015 and 28.04.2015 respectively passed by the second Appellate Authority namely, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 2. The appeals were admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-II, Bangalore is justified in invoking the provisions of Section 64(1) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and pass order dated 28.4.2015 setting aside the order dated 31.1.2014 passed by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-4, Bangalore and restoring the penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods vehicle tendered the invoices and submitted that they were waiting for e-sugam numbers to proceed further towards Bengaluru. Subsequently, the invoice particulars were uploaded on the website of the Department and esugam was generated at 10.30 p.m. at the branch office and the number was also furnished to DCCT and a prayer was made to release the goods. 4. The DCCT without verifying the e-sugam detained the vehicles and issued a notice dated 17.01.2013 by which an explanation was sought from the appellant for not carrying e-sugam at the time of interception. The appellant filed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and submitted that since the person responsible at the branch office of the appellant for issuance of e-sugam had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the Act. It is further submitted that the appellant had filed the monthly return in Form-VAT 100 declaring the purchases and there was no ground to hold that there was an attempt to evade the payment of tax. It is also submitted that the required Form-F for stock transfer from Andhra Pradesh to Karnataka was generated and furnished to the branch by the appellant. It is further submitted that the order of the First Appellate Authority is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore, no ground for invoking power under Section 64(1) of the Act was made out. In support of the said submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in 'Abhay Solvents Pvt. Ltd. vs. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Limited in Bangalore and Another v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore, 1992(36) Kar.L.J. 420 (HC) (DB):(1994)94 STC 349 (Kar.) (DB); Sagar Dye Chem v. State of Kerala, (2003) 133 STC 478 (Ker.); W.S. Telesystems Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Zone II, Bangalore, (1997) 107 STC 568 (Kar.)(DB). 9. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Section 53(12)(a) of the Act, which reads as under: (12)(a) The officer in charge of a check post or a barrier or any other officer in respect of any contravention of, or noncompliance with, the provisions of sub-section (2), for which sufficient cause is not furnished, levy a penalty which.- (i) shall not be less than the amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, the First Appellate Authority has held that e-sugam though was not produced initially at the time of interception but was subsequently produced at 10.30 p.m. and the explanation which was given for not producing e-sugam at the time of interception of the vehicle is that, the person responsible for issuance of e-sugam at the branch office of the appellant had proceeded for dinner. The aforesaid explanation appears to have been accepted by the First Appellate Authority. 11. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in Abhay Solvents Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Revisional Authority was not justified in reversing the order of the Appellate Authority and in confirming the order of penalty by the Commercial Tax Officer. It is pertinen....