MILLENNIUM FLOORS, NO. 101, 4TH CROSS, LAL BAGH ROAD, RANGAPPA GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 027 Vs. ADDL. COMMR OF COML TAXES, ZONE-1, 3RD FLOOR VTK (RA), GANDINAGAR, BANGALORE - 9, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMML TAXES, (APPEALS-1), SCB BOARD (FAA), SHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Authority restoring the penalty imposed on the Assessee.

(2.) The Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in trading of all kinds of flooring items. The goods were sought to be procured from Tamil Nadu in vehicle bearing No. KAO 1 C 4969. On 08.01.2008 at the Check Post, when the vehicle was stopped, the person-in-charge of the goods vehicle has tendered the invoice issued by M/s. Kumar Distributors, Chennai in favour of the Assessee. The documents were verified and it was noticed that the goods were coming from Navaseva, Mumbai to Bangalore whereas the tax invoices were raised from Chennai to Bangalore. The Respondent held that there are no documents for movement of goods from Navaseva to Bangalore. Accordingly, there is contravention of provisions of Section 53(2) of the KVAT Act, 2003 and levied penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty. Suo-moto revision was initiated by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. A notice was issued and the Assessee was heard. By the impugned order, the double penalty as imposed by the Assessing Authority was reduced to the amount of tax leviable. Accordingly, the order under appeal was set aside and the penalty was modified. Hence the present appeal by the Assessee.

(3.) The Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He contends that there was no intention to avoid the tax due to the State. Hence, imposition of penalty is bad in law. He contends that it is for the State to show the loss of revenue to the State. Hence, revisional power could not be exercised. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment in the case of M/s. Khemka Plywood, Bangalore v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zona-II, Bangalore,2001 51 KarLJ 26 to contend that while Check Post Authorities have not scrutinized the documents, the Assessee cannot be found fault with.