KELA BRORS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY , the documents required in terms of sub-section (2) of section 28-A read with rule 23-D of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, were not carried by the transporter as a result of which the penalty came to be levied. Before us, the only question canvassed by learned counsel Sri Bhat is that they were produced subsequently at the time of hearing after notice to the consignor and, therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sree Hajee Ahmed Bava v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 328, he drew our attention to the ruling of the Division Bench in paragraph 34, the penalty was uncalled for. We are unable to see such a proposition. The passage in para 38 is as follows :

(2.) HOWEVER , our attention was drawn to another passage in the same judgment which occurs at paragraph 34 which is as follows :

(3.) THERE is no merit in this petition. It is rejected. Petition dismissed