GOYAL ISPAT Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated October 23, 2009 passed in ZAC-1/DWD/SMR-07/09-10 by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone 1, Bangalore, under section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act"). The appellant is a dealer dealing in steel having business at Hubli. During the course of audit, the authorities found from the report of Commercial Tax Officer (Mobile Squad-3), Harihar, that the penalty was levied under section 53(1) of the Act on the ground that the appellant herein had not complied with the provision of section 53(2) of the Act and an attempt was made to evade the tax. It was verified from the records that when the mobile squad intercepted the goods vehicle carrying 16.995 metric tons of various kinds of iron and steel viz: M S angles, flats, bars and rounds at NH-4, Bypass Davangere on July 9, 2006, the driver of the goods vehicle was found two tax invoices issued by a consignor from Goa one for one metric ton and another for 15.995 metric tons, respectively and the goods were transporting on behalf of the appellant. On enquiry, it was learnt that the goods were to be delivered to the customers of the appellant at Hiriyur.

(2.) Based on the above facts, the respondent learnt that the appellant without raising the local tax invoice at Hubli was transporting the goods directly from Goa to Hiriyur only to evade the tax payable at Hubli. Accordingly, the audit authority examining the reply of the appellant by overruling the objections, an order was passed. Against which, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and thereafter the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone 1, Bangalore, exercising the power vested in him under section 64(1) of the KVAT Act 2003 took up a suo motu revision.

(3.) The revisional authority heard the appellant in detail and allowed the revision by setting the order of the appellate authority by order dated October 23, 2009 and the order of the audit authority passed under section 39(1) of the Act was restored. This order is called in question in this appeal.