2023 (1) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru ('KAT' for short) has been admitted to consider either of the following two questions: Whether Tribunal was right in disallowing the exemption under Section 5(2) of the CST Act to the extent of Rs.16,51,67,363/-, which represented high sea sales by the appellant-assessee on the ground that same was not supported by documentary evidence? OR Whether Tribunal was right in disallowing the exemption under Section 5(2) of the CST Act to the extent of Rs.16,51,67,363/-, which represented high sea sales despite assessee having tendered evidence before the authorities as regards said sales, which had been accepted by said authorities." 2. Heard Shri. T. Suryanarayana, learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was no endorsement by the assessee on Bill of Lading. He argued that having so recorded, the KAT held a roving enquiry into the documents, which included an Intelligent Report by the Enforcement Officer and limited the exemption to Rs.1,65,32,500/- on the ground that documents were available only to that extent. 6. In substance, Shri. Suryanarayana's argument is that the KAT has exceeded its jurisdiction in holding a roving enquiry by considering irrelevant material in limiting the relief. 7. Shri. Jeevan Neeralgi, learned AGA for the Revenue, adverting to para 26 of the impugned order submitted that the agreement was not signed by the proper person overseas. Therefore, the KAT having considered the material on record, has rightly lim....