MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A transporter has preferred this revision petition challenging the restoration of the penalty order by setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. The petitioner is a transporter of goods based in Bangalore. They are engaged in the transport of the goods from Delhi and other Northern States of India to Southern States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, etc. On 28-5-2007, a goods vehicle bearing No. HR-55/D-8287 of the petitioner transporting the goods from Delhi to Southern States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, etc., called at the Tumkur Road Sales Tax Check-post (Inward), Tumkur Road, Bangalore, carrying goods like readymade garments, electrical goods, kitchenware, copperware, etc., valued at Rs. 18,96,120/-. On entertaining doubt about the genuineness of the documents tendered for verification, an endorsement was issued on 28-5-2007 directing the person in-charge of the goods vehicle namely, Sri Mansingh not to deliver the goods covered by GC notes numbering 36 comprising of general goods, kitchenware, readymade garments, dinner sets, vehicle covers, copper wire, etc. The suspicion was about the existence of the consignors and the consignees. He was also asked to file confirmation of the transactions by filing registration certificates and monthly returns filed by the consignees. Thereafter, the vehicle was physically verified to find out whether it tallies with the goods mentioned in the documents tendered. After such physical verification, a notice was issued proposing to levy penalty of Rs. 3,81,503/- for the detailed reasons set out in the said notice.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-transporter assailing the impugned order contends that, when the vehicle entered the State of Karnataka, the transporter had produced all the documents to the Check-post Officer, who being satisfied, allowed the vehicle inside the State. All the goods transported are supported by the documents. Merely because confirmation by the consignor could not be produced, that is no reason to hold that the goods were transported without valid documents and imposing penalty, there is no evasion of tax. In fact, the authorities being convinced about the genuineness of the documents have allowed substantial portion of the goods to be transported outside Karnataka to Tamil Nadu. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order.

(3.) Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned order. The material on record clearly establishes that, on an investigation by the authorities, some other documents on which reliance was placed by the transporter were found to be not genuine. It is not a case of avoidance of tax by the transporter. It is a case of transporting goods without valid document. When the transporter is unable to produce confirmation letter from the persons from whom he received the goods for transportation, nothing more requires to be done. In all cases where genuinely he received the document from the consignor, on being satisfied about the genuineness, the authorities have cleared those goods. It is only in cases where there was no consignor at all and the documents on which reliance was placed was found to be not genuine, action has been taken. The Tribunal was also justified in imposing additional penalty. In these circumstances, we do not see any justification to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, no merits in this revision petition.