KHEMKA PLYLAND Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the appellant's learned counsel and the learned Government Advocate fully in this appeal to the extent that we have heard them on the merits both as far as the factual position and the legal position are concerned. We are satisfied after a detailed examination of the record that the finding recorded in favour of the appellants by the appellate authority which is to the effect that the requisite documents which support the view that the tax in question had been paid and that there was no illegality or irregularity committed by the appellants is perfectly sustainable. The learned Government Advocate advanced an interesting argument which we need to take note of. He was very emphatic about the fact that though every vehicle is required to stop for scrutiny at the entry check-post by the State that for a very strange reason in this particular case it appears that the vehicle got through that check-post without any scrutiny. The appellant's learned counsel submits that these check-posts are set up only for purposes of carrying out random checks and that if they do not check a particular vehicle that the party cannot be penalised for it. The opposite view is canvassed by the learned Government Advocate who submits that every set of documents is scrutinised and that the physical checking is done on a random basis and it is his submission that if the documents, do not bear any indication of having been checked that there is something highly suspicious and that therefore the revisional authority has very rightly interfered. We have taken very serious note of what has been pointed out by the learned Government Advocate but what we need to refer to is that even suspicion must be based on some cogent, tangible material and if in the present instance the mere non-scrutiny of the documents by the check-post authorities is to be held against the appellants, in our considered view it would be manifestly unfair because there could be the equal possibility that the authorities were satisfied and therefore waived the scrutiny. There can also be the possibility that the check-post authorities were negligent and therefore, since there are many possibilities we refrain from recording any adverse conclusion against the appellant. On merits we find that the order of the appellate authority which is a speaking order is perfectly justified and that the interference by the revisional authority was uncalled for. Apart from this, we have often pointed out that where a superior authority interferes with a logically well sustained order that it will be necessary to replace that order with a better one. That has not been done in this case and it only confirms our finding that interference itself was unjustified.

(2.) THE appeal accordingly succeeds. The revisional order is quashed and set aside. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.