STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. S. MEHABOOB KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Government has filed this revision petition under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') challenging the order dated 16th April 2010 made in STA No.259/2007 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals) DVO-I & III, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Authority') as well as the Mobile Check Post Authority.

(2.) The respondent is a Transporter transporting goods from Delhi to Tamil Nadu through Bangalore. On 18-02-2006 at about 6.00 a.m., the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-63/A-4685 was intercepted by the Commercial Tax Officer, Mobile Check Post-2 (hereinafter referred to as the CTO) near Featherlite factory at Mysore Road. The said vehicle was carrying certain consignment which is taxable under the Act. The CTO asked the person in-charge of the vehicle to tender the documents pertaining to the consignment carried in the said goods vehicle. The person in-charge of the goods vehicle had failed to tender the necessary documents pertaining to the consignment carried in the vehicle. Accordingly, the CTO issued GCE Notice dated 18-2-2006 and asked the person in-charge of the vehicle to station the goods vehicle at Control Room for physical verification of quantity and value of the goods. However, the driver of the said goods vehicle refused to accept GCE notice. At about 11.30 a.m. one Sri.Mehaboob Khan, who claims to be the representative of the transporter appeared before the CTO and received the GCE notice and also tendered the documents with a letter stating that in view of ignorance and illiteracy of the driver who was the person in-charge of the goods vehicle and also due to language problem, he could not produce the documents and he made available the Xerox copies of some documents viz., Trip Sheet and 41 LRs. On receipt of the said documents, the CTO noticed that there was no seal or signature of the entry check post. The transporter has not produced the transit pass in duplicate since the goods were being transported from one State to another. The original documents and seal and signature of the check post of other States were also not made available. It is the duty of the person in-charge of the goods vehicle to produce the documents as and when demanded by the Officers. There is delay of 5 hours in producing the documents without necessary particulars. Accordingly, the CTO rejected the said documents and issued notice on 1-3- 2006 for imposing penalty under Section 53(12) of the Act.

(3.) In pursuance of the said notice, the respondent filed objections to the said notice. Further the respondent has paid the penalty amount of Rs.2,46,187/- on 8-3-2006. The objections filed by the respondent-transporter was considered by the CTO and found that the goods that were carried in the goods vehicle were auto parts, electrical goods, hardware items, tiles, etc. Out of 41 consignments, 6 consignments were to be delivered at Bangalore and the remaining goods were to be delivered at Chennai after valuing the goods as per Section 53(12)(a)(i) of the KVAT Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.7,67,696/- by its order dated 1-3-2006. The transporter being aggrieved by the order of penalty imposed by the CTO, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority under Section 62(6) of the KVAT Act.