KRISHNA COLOUR LAB Vs. DY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 29-09-2006 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (Appellate Authority) Jammu under section 11 of the J&K GST Act,1962 (hereinafter called as 'Act'). To put in brief the facts of the case is that Ld. Appellate Authority has seized the machinery which was purchased from M/s WWW PhotoLab System (SDN). BHD Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and cleared from the custom Check through M/as R.S. Rangnekar and Co., Mumbai by the consignee M/s Krishna Colour Lab, Below Gumat, Jammu. The appellant was a registered dealer. The machinery imported by the appellant was also covered in the CST registration certificate against column (b). Even then the Ld. Assessing Authority has seized the machinery of the consignee and forcibly charged the security amounting to Rs. 1,12,440.00 under section 15A(9) of the J&K GST Act, 1962.

(2.) Aggrieved by this order the appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (Appellate Authority), Jammu on 11-02-2005 which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 29-09-2006 and aggrieved by this order preferred 2nd appeal before this Tribunal on various grounds. The main ground urged by the appellant is, that the machinery was cleared from the Custom in the name of consignee and not in the name of consignor and if the delivery of goods or any allied job was conducted in India how it is possible to get the clearance from custom in the name of appellant. The machinery purchased by the consignee was covered by the Central Sales Laws. The question of liability of tax under the General Sales Tax Act was nor rise, therefore, tax charged from the appellant was totally illegal and unjustified and it is liable to be refunded alongwith interest. Also submitted that the Appellate Authority has not passed the order on merits.

(3.) I have heard the Ld. counsel for the respondents and have considered the grounds mentioned in the appeal as counsel for the appellant has chosen to remain absent has not appeared therefore the appeal is decided on merits. While going through the impugned order and order passed by the Assessing Authority, it has been established that the Assessing Authority passed the order on admission given by the appellant that he is ready to pay 4.2% tax instead of 8.4% which appellant has submitted before the Assessing Authority by way of written application.