ZAM ZAM TRADING, NO. 15, 1ST FLOOR, P.C. ROAD, BALEPET CROSS, BANGALORE - 53 Vs. ADLL. COMR OF COMRL TAXES, ZONE-1, 3RD FLOOR VTK, GANDINAGAR, BANGALORE- 9

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 dealer in traveling bags and suit cases. The goods vehicle carrying the commodities was intercepted on 25.06.2007, when the goods were being unloaded at the Assessee's place. The person in charge of the goods vehicle had tendered the invoice issued by M/s. Avon Overseas, Kalyani in favour of the appellant for having effected sales valued at Rs. 5,26,036/ -. The Respondent noticed that the said documents has not been tendered at the first entry check post and held that there was an intention to avoid the tax. Accordingly, a penalty was imposed on the Assessee. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated suo -moto revision against the Assessee. By the impugned order, the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside and the order of penalty was restored. 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, the revisional power could not be exercised. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment in the case of M/s. Khemks Plywood, Bangalore v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone -II, Bangalore reported in 2001 (51) KLJ 26 to contend that when the Check Post Authorities have not scrutinized the documents, the Assessee cannot be found fault with.