GAJANANA TRADERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTION raised is whether tribunal is justified in sustaining the penalty levied under Section 29a (4) of the KGST Act in respect of 100 bags of raw cashew transported by petitioner which was accompanied by blank delivery note and purchase bills. The goods were detained by Police and handed over to Sales Tax Department for follow up action. The Officer found that petitioners sister concern was engaged in massive evasion of tax and was subjected to penalty. In respect of the transaction in question also, the officer found that since delivery note was not filled up, the transaction was not supported by valid document. Even though first appeal was allowed, the tribunal reversed the order of first appellate authority and confirmed penalty against which this S. T. Rev. Case is filed.

(2.) COUNSEL for petitioner contended that the goods were accompanied by purchase bills which contained delivery note numbers. Therefore, according to him, the transaction was covered by valid documents and, therefore, there was no attempt of evasion of tax. Government Pleader, on the other hand, pointed out that delivery note kept in the vehicle was not at all filled up and when delivery note was accompanying the goods, the dealer treated that as valid document, and not the purchase bills issued by him at the time of purchase outside the business place. We are inclined to accept this contention for more than one reason. In the first place, purchase bill is not a valid document for transport of goods. Petitioner was well aware of this and that is the reason why delivery note was sent along with the vehicle for purchase and transport of goods. Since delivery note was kept blank even after twenty kilometers of transport of the purchased goods, obviously petitioners attempt was not to account the purchase of goods in the Department document, i. e. delivery note. Therefore, the blank deliver y note accompanying the goods was rightly treated as not a valid document. The test to be applied is whether the goods would have got accounted, but for detention. We have no doubt in our mind that if petitioner bonafide wanted to account the goods, delivery note would have been filled up at the time of loading the goods for transport and if the petitioner to throws away the so called purchase bills after goods reach business place, purchases go unaccounted. In other words, the very same blank delivery note could have been repeatedly used for purchase and transport of any number of consignments of goods. A blank delivery note accompanying the goods is no valid document at all because unless it is filled up with relevant particulars, it cannot be related to the goods. Therefore, the only inference possible is attempt of evasion of tax and, therefore, we uphold the order of the tribunal.