Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 1337 and 1338 of 2012. Case: Shivayogeshwar Oil Mill, Shirahatti Taluka, Gadag District and Another Vs State of Karnataka. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
| Case Number | Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 1337 and 1338 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: Smt. Shalini Patil, Advocate for Appellants and For the Respondent: Sri B. Vasanth Kumar, State Representative for Responde |
| Judges | Basavaraj S. Sappannavar, DJM and P. Puttaraju, CTM |
| Issue | Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Sections 63, 62 and 53(12) |
| Citation | 2013 (77) KarLJ 263 |
| Judgement Date | August 21, 2013 |
| Court | Karnataka Appellate Tribunal |
Judgment:
P. Puttaraju, CTM
-
These two appeals are filed under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, the 'Act') challenging the impugned orders passed under Section 62 of the Act by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Dharwad Division, Hubli (for short, as 'FAA') on 8th May, 2012 in Case Nos. AP/VAT-221 and 222/2011-12 separately for each of the above appellants, wherein the FAA has upheld the total penalty levied on the goods vehicle bearing No. KA-25 A-3539 by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement-5), Belgaum (for short, referred to as 'Inspecting Authority' or 'IA') amounting to Rs. 66,240/-. The goods vehicle was carrying consignment of goods namely groundnut oil belonging to the two appellants who are involved in these two appeals. The penalty amounting to Rs. 44,640/- (out of Rs. 66,240/-) is levied on the first appellant mentioned in the cause title relating to STA No. 1338 of 2012 and Rs. 21,600/- (out of Rs. 66,240/-) is levied on the second appellant relating to STA No. 1337 of2012.
-
The facts and grounds leading to these two appeals in brief are as under:
(i) The goods vehicle bearing No. KA-25 A-3539 was carrying 46 (forty-six) barrels of groundnut oil (G.N. Oil). Out of this, 31 (thirty-one) barrels of G.N. Oil belongs to the first appellant and the remaining 15 (fifteen) barrels belongs to the second appellant. At the time of checking, the IA had knowledge that the forty-one barrels of G.N. Oil belongs to two appellants as mentioned supra.
(ii) The said goods vehicle has been intercepted by the IA on 19th October, 2011 at 1.00 A.M. at Kamathur Cross.
(iii) The person in-charge of the goods vehicle has submitted a document in the form of letter issued by M/s. Sri Mayur Oil Industries, Sangli for the 46 barrels of G.N. Oil.
(iv) It is the contention of the appellants that the said G.N. Oil has been sold by them vide Invoice No. 615, dated 16-10-2011 and Invoice No. 29, dated 16-10-2011 of the first appellant and the second appellant respectively. It is the plea of the appellants that the said goods were being returned, since the purchaser had rejected the said goods on account of quality variation. As the goods under transportation were not moving "not as a result of sale" were not supported by e-Sugam as required for the transportation of edible oil at the time of interception and checking of goods vehicle and goods under consignment. The IA has levied penalty at Rs...
To continue reading
Request your trial