M/S Abhay Solvents Private Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2009

II
-I
II
I

IN THE HIGH" (.";OUR'Ifi"' <1)? KARNA'I'AK_A AT BAN<;A_1,0R1E3
DATED TI-{IS 'I'I~IE3  {DAY OF DECE3\/{BER 2009 
PRl€SEi\:"I' I
'1';-1:4: I-IOE\z"BI,E MR.J{_IS'I"IC3E3 1'  . .
THE HONBLE M.R...}Us'1"1Cr::ARA37IN:) KU1\'/IA:1IF"';- I

BETWEEN: I

M /SABHAY SOIA/EN'I'S P\I/"IT1.I:,'I'D.;I_

A PRIVATE LIMi'E'E.D COMPANY" '

REGISTERED UNDER mp:   

IND IAN coMPAN1E_$A__c:T. :2 955; V. 

E{()I)PhAI4. 3 SKA 1 ; " ' '2.'
REPBY MAHA\fEERi'ME;_H'§'A; __     , .. APPELLANT

[BY SR1'ARA'V1Nfi;,K..AI':2gI3\/."'r?QR M /;é:E<2:xiI/1Afm & KAM'I'AH.}
AND: I  I I I I
mg S'I'A'I'E "'C}_FE<:AR'r\TA*1

RE;P.ByfmE AD D_1'1'10NA1.;*_<:G':v1MISSIONER
OF CQMMERCIAI; TAXES.

I I' «VANEJYA 1FH1::R1G£: KARY25~;I,A,

GAND'§:1NAuAR; 

'*.,BANcgA.I,0RE ~_--'~5gés0. 009. .. RESPONDENT

'-- A ' "(BYIs1*§/:';*;Cgz:iE:''1';~1A MEQNON, (}.A.}

$**$$$

I A '1'HIS s.'r.A. IS 1<";1_,£~:1:) U 24(1) OF mic KARNATAKA SALES

 "TAX ACT AGAINST THE? ORDER DT .18/E 1/ 2006 PASSED IN
,NE).SMR/KS"I'/DVO.II AND IV/(3R~04/200607 ON THE FILE OF
  ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZOI\IE~iI.
 G1§NDHINAGA.R. E?3AI\IGAI.OR.I.§, SF.'I'I'IN(} ASIDE THE ORDER OF



N
K'!

'FHE- COMMERCIAL TAX OFF'IC,ER DATED 9/ E0/2004 LE;VY}NG
PENALTY OF' Rs. .16.65()~O{) IS R.E3S'i'C)REI).  

THIS AI-'PEDAL COMINCE ON ma HEAR1NG.~«~~--TI$H.S_

ARAVIND KUMAR.J.. [)ELIVER.E1D THE FOE4i¢OWING I

JUDGME:'N'l'=.

The appellant. is ques_t,i(mir:gihiihe 2 of 'thefl

revisional authority dated 18/ iii}. exercise

of the revisional  uifideri 22-45(1) of the

Karnataka SaIes_'_i'aX  referred to as

the 'Act'). \Vhve_rei1:;§'*,'t' £11.64" re'1?iVSi01féaI 'a£1'ihbrity has set aside

the order   by the appellate

authority i_1j1__/05-06, by which order, it had

iallowed  apipealhiofJiappellants and directed for

_ refund. "of. the  of penalty collected by the check

I  post: iauth.A0.1'it_9y'

   factts leading to the filing of the appeal are

I  ' that the_'(Z*:ommerci'a1 "Fax Officer, (hereinafter referred to as

  (Mobile Check Post»-«4), Bangalore, intercepted

 rr,.'"f"goic;ds vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA.14.3025 on 9/10/2004
5%"



and issued a notice  to why penalty should not belevied

on the appellant since the appellant attemptedjt'o:.f"eyade

the tax by not stopping the goods vehicle 

Check Post and obtaizied the sealithereof.    it '

3. The C.'l'.O. on (:onSid_erin§.tlie   

driver found that. the driver guilty' yiolating the
Section 28-A(2)(d] of ;_'alri(1"p:.¢1'eV»i.ed a penalty of
Rs.16,650/~. which h2:1s"'be%*;I1V ";3.f<'x'i_C1'W.'L1.1i;&p'iie;r". protest by the

appellant.

 filed an appeal before
the Joihty  Commercial Tax Officer

{Appeals}, [)kVO:v-llvv.;;"LY1(i.l"-lV\A../ll,' Bangalore, in KS'l'.AP.266/O5~

  V""l;he"i*ap'pellatev"'atith_ority on considering the grounds

  was satisfied that the cause shown as

l  coht'e1npla'ted*At112der Section 28~.A{4) of the Act was

 :S'u.fiV.icier1't--- to annul the penalty levied and accordingly, by

  a._all.oWirig the appeal, directed the authorities to refund the

it  amount of penalty collected. 



:4-:-

5. The revlsicmal authority in exercise of the
revisional power under Section 22~A(l) of the A(j._t__, suo

mote sought. to revise the order of the appellate

and after iseuanee of notice to the appelleini."here-in'"andl7

considering the objections. came"tb*thegc0;nel'tiei0n.fthlat

the order of the appeilate auth0i*it_3f'--x;s}as le.i'_--i'nO11e:?)iiSr'aiid,v

prejudicial to the interest. of  and lt'e,ju/uiéeld the

order of the appellate'*e}uth'OfitI3ia.:':'datetl 6/12/2008 and
confirmed the order of  2004 levying

penalty of Rs?~l8.~;6}30/ by  same, by order

dated 118/ 11/ nrder, which is now assailed

in the appeal   'ap:pellai1t; by raising the following

 substatntilal questioiiaof law:~

 ' ..1}-,_i'n "t_h"e___facts and circurnstances of the ease,

 the Check Post Officer was justified in
 penalty under Section 28-A(-4} of the
 _l{?ar11atai1'€iiI1gI--y " 

question of law be answered in favoiiz"'oi"a'ppeJ.i_an.t. V 

9. Per contra. Snit.C{eet_ha V'M,enon,  

Advocate appearirig for the  iféifenfue would
contend that it is not   of tax or avoiding
payment of tax   the mandatory
provisions   which attracts
the  establishing mens rea
does not  'of penalty under this sub~

section arid" ac(:oifdingiy':.." she subrnits that revisional

.._authoijitVyt'was vi'u}IyV__=j_;rstii'ied in revising the order of the

A"2_appeE1aie_authority and restoring the order of the CFO and

she.p'riays'i"ojif tiismissal of the present appeai and prays

that txhetqpuestiori of law be answered against appeiiant

   appeal be dismissed.  L 



" " ' . * V*I1:.us, L

-= 10 :-
premise of the vio1at:io11 of Sectticm 28--A[2}{d] of the Act
would be c()mira1'y' to spirit" and ir1t_em:ion 1".)€1'.1iI1d Sub

section {4} of SeC1'.1'on 22~A oi' the A01. and  we

answer qL1es'L'.ions of law in favour of the app~£~i_I}2§£1i't' j'he1'*e_.t_.z1e.v

and against: the revemae in the f'a(.:t,As and ::ii*t%'g1~f1'2s't.'z117L(:es»e.of"'»

case only.

Accordingly, 'the appeal 'Vi*sV a»1E()xveCi;__ "Nave siubsteantial
questions of law  21:11ss'§\k*ee1'c?d_"Ai1'1 'fav.(._n.1V1*'~-r.).f" the assessee 

the appeilant herein  :o1<'d.ve r--».7._'Qi;--V*' the revisional

authmity .11?T20C'"8:  and the order of

the ap;$'e112:te  '6/12/2005 is restorcsd. N0

costs.

 o Sd/*
 .....