JAI HIND PLY Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL, TAXES ZONE II, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-II, Bangalore, dated 6.11.2012.

(2.) The appellant is a proprietorship concern, engaged in sale of Plywood, Timber, Flesh doors, Roofing Sheets, Vener Hardware and interior decoration materials. The appellant firm is registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act. The appellant's place of business is Pune. The goods vehicle bearing No.RJ-04-GA-1319 was intercepted by Commercial Tax Officer, STCP, Koganolli on 10.02007, while moving from Pune to Bangalore carrying wood valued at Rs.5,78,358/-. The persons in charge of the goods vehicle tendered invoice issued by M/s. Jai Hind Ply, Pune(appellant) in favour of M/s. Greenline, Bangalore. Upon verification of invoice, the Commercial Tax Officer STCP observed that since full particulars of consignee namely Greenline, Bangalore is not forthcoming with TIN number suspecting the transaction, issued endorsement dated 10.02007, wherein the authority directed to produce VAT 100 of the consignee. After issuance of the endorsement, check post officer has issued notice under Section 53(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 (for short, 'the KVAT Act') stating that the driver in-charge of the goods vehicle has produced the tax invoice, which reflects the value of the goods, but details of the consignee is not forthcoming. The person in-charge of the goods vehicle appeared and pleaded that the penalty proposed was too heavy, as the goods have already suffered tax @ 15% at the hands of the seller and requested to reduce the quantum of penalty. Considering the same, the check-post officer levied penalty of Rs.1,44,590/- as against the proposal levied of Rs.2,16,884/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the appeal, against which suo-moto proceedings were initiated under Section 66(1) of the KVAT Act by the revisional authority. After issuance of notice and considering the reply filed, revision order was passed setting-aside the order of the appellate authority restoring the original penalty order passed by the check-post officer, Koganolli. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Sri. Atul K. Alur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the revisional authority without application of mind proceeded to pass the order impugned herein; no reasons are assigned by the revisional authority to set-aside the appellate order and to restore the original order of penalty. Indeed, the revisional authority has reproduced the reply and facts and confirmed the order passed by the check-post officer; when there was no evasion of tax, the penalty cannot be levied. The appellant had raised invoice in favour of M/s. Poonam Timber Industries, Bangalore.