GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORT LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. P. C. is filed challenging Ext. P5 order issued by the Commissioner confirming penalty levied on the petitioner under S. 45b of the K. G. S. T. Act. Petitioner as transporter transported consignment containing 200 bottles of IMFL and 18 bottles of Goa Fenny through the checkpost at Walayar under cover of documents, which described the goods as dinner plates. However, during inspection at the checkpost it was noticed that the item in the packet was misdeclared as dinner plates and actually goods are liquor. The departmentseized the liquorand issued notice to the consignee. However, it was noticed that consignee is a bogus person. Therefore penalty is levied on the petitioner under S. 45b of the Act. Two levels of revisions were unsuccessful and hence this Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext. P5 order of the Commissioner. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader.

(2.) COUNSEL contended that goods were covered by documents and at the time of receipt of goods, petitioner-company has no mechanism to verify the contents or to get reconfirmation from the consignee about the contents of packets entrusted with them for transport. However, Government Pleader contended that petitioner as transporter is bound to verify the items transported and see that goods transported are under coverof proper documents. I do notthink petitioner has exercised necessary diligence in accepting goods involved in this case as crockery. In the first place, without opening packets, it would have been possible to detect that the contents are glass bottles containing liquid. Even if preliminary examination was made, it would have been possible for the employee of the petitioner-company to identify the goods as glass bottles. Therefore it is a caseof either conscious acton the part of the petitioner's employees to transport liquor under cover of bogus documents or it is a case of indifference on the part of the petitioner's employees. Since goods were transported from Goa, petitioner should have been all the more careful because it is a major outlet in liquortrade. Petitioner also did not makeany effort to verify whether the consignee is a genuine person or not. There is nothing to indicate that petitioner has collected freight charges in advance and so much so petitioner itself was running the risk of losing the freight charges in the event of confiscation of goods that happened in this case. In the circumstances I feel penalty is rightly levied on the petitioner under s. 45b of the Act. However, I feel penalty levied at Rs. 1,34,928/- is quite high because there is nothing to indicate that liquor transported are premium brand. Further 18 bottles are of Goa Fenny which are low value items. Above all, goods were not sold in Kerala, but were seized and handed over to excise authorities for dealing in accordance with statute. In other words, loss of revenue is prevented by confiscation of goods. In the absence of detailed inventory about the identity and genuineness of the product valuation is obviously done in a rough manner. I feel petitioner's contention that valuation of goods is excessive has some force. Considering all these, i reduce the penalty to Rs. 75,000/ -. If the petitioner has paid Rs. 30,000/- in terms of interim orders of this Court, then balance will only be recovered from the petitioner.