{"id":124310,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-03T16:32:38","modified_gmt":"2015-05-03T11:02:38","slug":"smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur K.Govindarajulu<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 29% DAY OF SEP1'EMBER;.2_'Q_1'O_\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE1\u00bbA1\\\/LAl\\iJIjl.lA All \n\nAND \nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE  LU\nSALES TAX.APPEAL:..l\\;Ef)lI2i.1 OR '20o97\n\nBEI WEEN\n\nSmt. Geetha,E*':ha-t S _, \n\nD\/o Sri. KeS_ha'\u00a792\u00a3 __Bl1at  _ V V\nSuresh Bha:eeEo':np_ouRr;:    . '\nDongerakeri    '!\n\n... APPELLANT\n\n(By Sfi-..  K.  Sri. P. E. Umesh.\nM\/ S. Global LaW_Ii1c.\u00bb~iA'(fv0cateS)\n\nAND\n\n_ \u00bb Fhe A_ddiu7Qf1a_l Commissioner\n'  C.\u00a7.Co:1j:=ne'i\"cial_i.TaXes\n\n     '\n\n'Z0r1ie--IV, V Terige Bhavan\nGa.Ddhinag.ar\n\nBar1gal0re~560 009  RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
  T. K. Vedamurthy, HCGP)<\/p>\n
This Appeal is filed “L1\/S 24(1) of the KST Act<\/p>\n
Against the Revision Order dated 21.10.2008 passed in<\/p>\n
K o.\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
No.ZACw1\/MNG\/SMR~12\/07~wO8. T.No.692\/08-09 on
\nthe \ufb01le of the Acldl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
\nZone–I, Bangalore, revising and setting aside the appeal
\norder and restoring the orders of assessment and
\npenal.ty of the Check post authority and accordingly
\nconcluding the revision proceedings. <\/p>\n
This Appeal coming on for Admission”
\nManjula Chellur J., delivered the following:  ll  ” ‘ <\/p>\n
On our direction, the’.__ le_arried*,_ Go’vei’nrnen_t.<\/p>\n
Advocate placed before us”the__origin.al file’i3lAe1Ajtai.ni_ng <\/p>\n
the assessment of sales tax  2002-\n<\/p>\n
03 of M\/ s. Vivek Pet’rol.Cc,.’  short ‘M\/ s.<\/p>\n
VivekvvPetro?}:’:and  isjierused. The questions of<\/p>\n
law raised are -as ‘  ~ , <\/p>\n
il”V’l-fllletirierl  don<\/p>\n
V .1’_) the facts and
\n‘ ‘__circ1l,1″mst..ances of the case the<\/p>\n
V   go’1″-‘:)__c_:ee(lings initiated against the
\n*  under Sections 28–AA of the
\n‘ ftiarnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 are void<\/p>\n
ab initio in view of the fact that the
\ngoods had become part of local stock of<\/p>\n
the consignor. who is also a registered<\/p>\n
iii)<\/p>\n
DJ<\/p>\n
dealer under the said Act, before they<\/p>\n
were transported outside the State’?<\/p>\n
Whether on the facts<\/p>\n
circumstances of the
\nRespondent has committed an
\nignoring the subrnission_”m\u00a7’f:’_’:p.\ufb01hietix
\nAppeiiant that the pr.ovisiotns4tof_1 <\/p>\n
28~AA of the Kar_nataI(a”Sa1escVTa;: it<\/p>\n
1957′ are not app1ica.b1e tc._the<\/p>\n
the present case-‘?’* –. it<\/p>\n
Whether  t    ”  and<\/p>\n
ciren1nstE;nces:’V..: .Qf~~.i”_*..th’e case the<\/p>\n
  in rejecting the<\/p>\n
” 4’  the Appellant that the<\/p>\n
 procceadi.ngs””..\u00bbs. ‘initiated against the<\/p>\n
aApp_e11:ar1t under Section 28–AA of the
\n ._Karnata’ka Sales T ax Act, 1957 is void\u00bb<\/p>\n
 :,”a:b:.i:ntio in View of Explanation to the<\/p>\n
‘V T  Section according to which hirer of<\/p>\n
t * “the goods Vehicle is presumed to be its<\/p>\n
owner and not the registered owner of<\/p>\n
the Vehicle ‘?\n<\/p>\n
andiirit<\/p>\n
Whether on the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
1″\n<\/p>\n
Respondent is right in hoiding <\/p>\n
the purpose of Expianation to’VS:ectiron
\n28–AA of the Karnat-aka..SaIes ;’\u00bb\\o’t,’_f,
\n1957, Consignor of the goods <\/p>\n
considered as the “hir’e_r”” of _the’ ‘goods;<\/p>\n
vehicle and thesaid word,  is
\napplicable _to oriiy   ‘t’ra.nsport’er Kivho
\nobtains goods. in case
\nhe does not a. goods ‘?\n<\/p>\n
  v and<\/p>\n
“Voirc’Lt;ri1stat1ees”   the case the
\n_1RespoVnde–nt”~.i_s __}’1_1stified in drawing a<\/p>\n
i \u00ab that the goods in question<\/p>\n
have been  inside the State for the<\/p>\n
only. reason that the transit pass has<\/p>\n
 not been surrendered at the exit check<\/p>\n
it  inspite of the fact that the<\/p>\n
iioiiiassessing authority of the consignor<\/p>\n
has in his assessment order passed<\/p>\n
under the provision of the Karnataka
\nSales Tax Act, 1957 given a finding
\nthat the Very same goods as that<\/p>\n
involved in the present case have been
\ntransported out of the State <\/p>\n
Karnataka ‘P<\/p>\n
2. T he admitted facts in-the—present.’ the it<\/p>\n
appellant is a transporter engaged in <\/p>\n
transportation of goods. In  the<\/p>\n
consignment belonging tofla  By’ name M\/s
\nVivek Petro — a registered  ;_:\ufb01d\u00a7r~.,A}garnataka Sales
\nTax Act,   of a product
\ncalled   ‘The contention of the
\n  which was required to
\nbe taltenfov the the person ineharge of the<\/p>\n
vehicles. at the Aohelokpost of entry after commencement of<\/p>\n
 the  not handed over at exit Check post.<\/p>\n
 .’_l””\u00a3-i__L:refore.,. ‘\u00e9i””‘..presumptio11 Lmder Subsection 4 of<\/p>\n
Sebtion:  is available to hold that the consignment<\/p>\n
 d;’d_not move out of the State but was sold within the<\/p>\n
state.\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
3. In the present case, the transit. pass was_._._issued<\/p>\n
by Kannur CheckPost, Kannur and the exit <\/p>\n
was Attibele near Hosur. Admittedly, the
\nreach the destination outside.:the..Sta:te ‘
\ni.e., Pondicherry. On the basis\u00b0’of of<\/p>\n
pass [TP] at Attibele exit-.._within.V.the’  time’<\/p>\n
under the above said…vprovi’s’ion;j4  notoniy imposed
\ntax but also levied   transported.<\/p>\n
The contenitionjr-of  was apart
\nfrom the  representative of
\nthe     Mangalore, who was
\ninchargeff  the commencement of the<\/p>\n
journey   reaeh”edf”the destination and he was the<\/p>\n
one.’\u20ac’w11QtQok fnfotf only the transit pass but was<\/p>\n
the duty of handing over the same at<\/p>\n
e)dt__Chee1{I’pfost. Therefore, the owner of the transit<\/p>\n
Vehicfevwvas not liable to pay either the tax or the
\n‘ ‘.pe’naity imposed. However. the order dated 09.12.2003<\/p>\n
 the Assessing Officer goes to show that the said<\/p>\n
defence was not accepted and they proceeded to impose<\/p>\n
tax of Rs. lO,800\/- and another Rs.l0,800\/\u00abw <\/p>\n
This was challenged before the <\/p>\n
KST Appeal No.229\/OSWO4.\n<\/p>\n
4. The appellate au.thority__’i’n the”‘v’pre4sent; <\/p>\n
after taking into consideration assessment on
\nthe return submitterlfhy the “goods i.e..
\nVivek Petro,  there was no
\nevasion Qpf  \ufb01f’hfere:tct’fe’,”x’onmliassuniptions taxes
\ncannot”vhe.iieiz;i:ecl” assessee was able to
\n ‘ample evidence to prove the
\nmovenien_to_t ” the State and not to sell<\/p>\n
 the  According to him, the order of<\/p>\n
\u00bb ;assVes,smen:t”*passed under Section 12(2) of the Act by the<\/p>\n
‘As’sista11tj— vf=Comm1ssioner of Commercial Taxes,<\/p>\n
Maiigiaiorve, indicates there was no evasion of any taxes<\/p>\n
  and all the goods imported by M \/ s Vivek Petro were the<\/p>\n
subject matter of assessment and all the consignments<\/p>\n
  ;\n<\/p>\n
which were to reach Pondieherry unit belorzged_.__t0 the<\/p>\n
Very owner M\/s Vivek Petro but did in fa’e-t”‘–\u00abre’aeh<\/p>\n
Pondicherry which was evident by the  <\/p>\n
of the Superintendent of Cenitral–.Excj’isevi’<\/p>\n
dated 9.9.2003. He also refers i~e1ieape’e.er.yofV<\/p>\n
naptha in favour of the  and issued’
\nby the Deputy Co1nine1*ciai””‘1″;a\u00a7{:’ \ufb02”‘fi”ieerA’of”Pondicherry.
\nThe assessing authority’had’i”e:er1i\u00a7’i:.{o;.afconclusiorz that
\nall the entries’:ei’\ufb01i”eete_d’ did move out of
\nthe State?   the appellate authority
\naliowiediiitheeiVieypipi\u00e9gai  the appellant, setting
\naside:vv”.t,1E1e  check post officer dated<\/p>\n
 Tiled.”-re{r.isiona1 authority took up the<\/p>\n
‘  pm”attei5″by”i’way ofmsuo-motto revision and issued a show<\/p>\n
  ea11sie._h=otiCVer- the assessee calling upon him to explain<\/p>\n
 co_nter3;ts of the notice. The assessee appeared<\/p>\n
 beforze’=—the revisional authority and submitted the<\/p>\n
‘=e’X’peanati0n. However, the revisional authority found<\/p>\n
  order of the appellate authority as improper and<\/p>\n
‘\\\\{\\  I  .\u00ab   <\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
prejudicial to the interest of the State reVenue_for the
\nfollowing reasons:\n<\/p>\n
I. The appellant is the owner
\nvehicle has obtained trarisit.::’~..l3ass’-A
\nNo.0185584 dated’  ‘os,ci..7.o2.CV]e . _for*7*
\ntransportation of N’aptlfi’a..f1’om”‘
\nKannur, but failed to; lsurrende1’2’ the} 3
\nTransit pass at  _ Exit ” Cheeks-.\n<\/p>\n
Attibele on or befoise 08.0T?A.0:2. On
\nenquiry th_rough~”*Corresp_onder1ce wlvith
\nCTO of Att”1″‘.oele_ C.hveck_’\u00bb.VPost the CTO
\nKannur ascertain-ed;th_at’–tl1e’records of
\nCheck pog;.t– r1-o’t’\u00bbr._shovsf””passage of
\ngoods\ufb01vehiele N’o.”‘K.A–;.’14.e.8t’)99 through
\n_.Chec1k_..’Post:__ai1.d the,’ transit pass was
\nlalsfolfjnot ‘ .si\u00a7’1~.r’reridere’;<il and there by
\n ~~~~  .Aeo;1t1*at*g%e.ned' 'Sect1or;'–28AA[2) of KST Act<\/p>\n
2. ‘,_The “FAA ” .hlas wrongly allowed the
\nAppealvl’ ir1′- so far as levy of tax and
\npenalty _____ “Au\/s 28AA[4] & 28AA[5)<\/p>\n
. ‘concerned which is against the<\/p>\n
..V”\u00ab.t’J_1i’dgment of Hon. Supreme Court of<\/p>\n
 injdia in the case of civil Appeal No.3787<\/p>\n
 2006 M\/s KGOPALA KRISHNA<\/p>\n
 AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF
\nKARNATAKA with CA Nos.3788–384~-4\u00bb of<\/p>\n
2006 dated 25.07.2007. Therefore it is
\nnow proposed to set aside the appeal<\/p>\n
order in so for as the provisions of
\nSection 28AA(4] & (5) are concerned
\nand to remit the matter of CPO for fresh<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration in the light of the above
\njudgment. ‘<\/p>\n
3. The FAA has misread the provision’   , ”
\nSection 28(6) of KST Act While allowing”
\nthe appeal as the said provisions–..re1ate4_
\nto conclusion of provjisiorial asses’sinerlt__:VA.
\norder by the inspecting au.tho’rity “w_h’ieh_
\nis independent of priovisieons of _Vsecvtion\\:..,,,_.
\n28AA[4). The eaproceeldings ufsl ‘ 28(6)
\nand 28AA [4] areV_vlin_depe’11den.t ajildivlthell
\npowers are con\ufb01rmed ‘-with ‘the
\ninspecting, autho’rity’- and the {SP0
\nrespectivelyffi Cin ,th’e’.._ba”siys of orders
\npassed u\/s ‘2a8′{6}.,by’ the ACCT {Ins} ll
\nMangalore  should ‘not have
\nlinked\u00bb–._this proy1sio’n’al_V order with the
\nq1?_1an};i\u00bbiiea.t1oriof taxes’ rnade u\/ s 28AA
\n[‘4)ly.rri’ad’cf by:p.l.___C”}\u00b0Q”;p_ Therefore, on this
\neQun:t_also,’–.the  order passed by<\/p>\n
‘  sij;\ufb01”‘ers..frorIi “illegality and liable to<\/p>\n
__ beqt1a_slied\u00abf’=v..__ – l<\/p>\n
Ultimately’ 4 the appellate authority were<\/p>\n
revi\u00a7sedi”and ls’e-t–a_side. The orders of assessment and<\/p>\n
V ple-naltyoi’ cheek post authority were restored.<\/p>\n
ll ‘  5, Seetion 28–AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act reads<\/p>\n
‘ , as under::\n<\/p>\n
“Transit of goods by road through the State and
\nissue of transit pass– {1]V\\\/’here a vehicle is<\/p>\n
carrying goods taxable under this Act-<\/p>\n
(a) from any place outside the State
\nand bound for any place outside the
\nState and passes through thiys”‘S1,ate;<\/p>\n
01’<\/p>\n
(b) and which goods ir::._t_o<\/p>\n
the State from any_plae’e. they <\/p>\n
country and “such, goods are’ “being;<\/p>\n
carried  iiplacer <\/p>\n
stare,-._ V _ V
\nthe driver or any other:’tpers0fi–~i1’i5(;h’arg\u00a7e of such
\nvehicle shall fumish ‘t:’rie=rieees.sary iiriforrn\u00e9ation and
\nobtain a ti’ansit.”;oass’– containing such
\nparticulalfs as rnAa.yy,:.be pvre-s_cr1tbved’,”VV–.tjrom the offieer~in–
\nchargegoi’ first. ‘orbbyarrier after his entry<\/p>\n
i1’l'[.O::”[:1″i.t”V’,<\u00ab-__Sff'cZ'.v"t~'t?';_V or<a\u00a3t_eI'~_n1oVe1fne_nt has Commenced from<\/p>\n
7the_ _.9t\u00e9:e;_\u00e9stth<:_'egse f may be, or from the officer<\/p>\n
emyp'oWe1"ed"A:.tGrd"t.heepurposes of subsection (3) of<\/p>\n
Sect'ion'\u00bb2V8–'A, 71,1bpo–n interception of the goods vehicle<\/p>\n
 ua'f1;er its"e.1jitry&j11t.o the State or after movement has<\/p>\n
"Commenced as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
A”(‘i]’I\u00a7he\u00bbAV.i’Vvdi’iver or the person-in-charge of the vehicle<\/p>\n
s1’1~.a’_1i14j’..–die1iver within the stipulated time a copy of the<\/p>\n
~ transit pass obtained under sub-seetiontl) to the<\/p>\n
oifficer-in-charge at the last eheekpost. or barrier before<\/p>\n
his exit from the State.\n<\/p>\n
{3)lf for any reason, the goods carried in goods
\nVehicle are, after entry into the State4…[or_tta_fter<\/p>\n
commencement of movement, as the case.~n1a’y. <\/p>\n
moved out of the State within the tiniohstipulated<\/p>\n
the transit pass, the owne1’_ofthe goods’ <\/p>\n
furnish to the officer enipowered  <\/p>\n
reason for such delay and other_ particulars, if any;’g<\/p>\n
thereof and such officerslaall after__ due en(V51’~1v1Viry’elxte11dl’<\/p>\n
the time oi” exist by arnending  transit<\/p>\n
pass:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that. whereithe   a vehicle are,
\nafter Eth:-*.\u00abi_r:’_* en__ti’y  l*:tl1e___Hl:lState, [or after
\ncomn1’enc_ernei*;_t.V as the case may be}
\ntransp.or:t~eEl_; by any other vehicle or
\n,t\u00a5oni}\u00e9ya::;:\u00a23 of H’ proving that the goods have
\n  the State shall be on the owner<\/p>\n
of theyehicie  voriginally brought the goods into the<\/p>\n
;*St;ate. V
\n{\/:i}I:f the di;iye’r”‘or any other pei*son–in-charge of the
\n  uevhiclregllldoes not comply with sub–section [2], it shall
\n  that the goods carried thereby have been<\/p>\n
A  sold  the State by the owner of the vehicle and<\/p>\n
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-<\/p>\n
”  section (5) of section 5, be assessed to tax by the<\/p>\n
..*officer empowered in this behalf in the prescribed<\/p>\n
rnann CI’ .\n<\/p>\n
(5}lf the owner of the Vehicle [having obtained the<\/p>\n
transit pass as provided under sub–section (1) 7f.ai’}s to<\/p>\n
deliver the same as provided under sub–se(:_t4iolr:1′[‘2}’V; <\/p>\n
shall be liable to pay by way of penalty” ”<\/p>\n
exceedin double the amount of ta):”i’evf\u00a7g1ble’=.oi1 the”
\n9  _ ._ . , ._<\/p>\n
goods transported.\n<\/p>\n
(6}The amount of tax ‘the perialty leyied’:._unuer this” V S’<\/p>\n
Section shall be recovered\u00e9uini the p.reseribed rrtanner.<\/p>\n
[7}Where the owv1i’er” of is assessed to
\ntax under sub\u00bbsAection   after such
\nassessn:1.,ventV, l’_’any:;A_go_od.s taA_$EalbieV_._uVjider this Act in a
\ngoods=’atehiclte\ufb02ufrontanyoutside the State (or
\nmovenaentlifrgoin  State, as the case may be]
\n  place outside the State and is
\npassing’  the prescribed authority<\/p>\n
rnay’~idema1V1″d_ from_s;uch owner an amount equivalent<\/p>\n
; ‘togtwo times’ the  leviable on such goods under this<\/p>\n
 Act as gsecurityj” ‘<\/p>\n
 ‘ ” prescribed authority after being satisfied<\/p>\n
 thatlthetgoods Carried in the goods Vehicle in respect of<\/p>\n
 which the security amount under sub–section(7) was<\/p>\n
collected, has passed through the State, shall refund<\/p>\n
fffsuch security amount to the owner.<\/p>\n
[9)The prescribed authority may by an
\norder adjust the whole or any part of security
\namount towards any amount of tax or penalty
\npayable under this section by such owner}.<\/p>\n
Explanation– in case where a vehicle
\nowned by a person is hired for t’ransportatiovn
\ngoods by some other person, the h1rer:v~’o\u00a3l_th:e”‘VS
\nvehicle shall for the purposes of t.his <\/p>\n
deemed to be the owner of th.e.\u00bb.V.ehicle].l  ”  V’<\/p>\n
6. Presumption under sub–:”secti_.’or’1llV4 of <\/p>\n
the Act undisputedly is a iy’lf’l5\\UjFtal i31’6su’T.1E3tcloi:1..rl””Rebutta’lall<\/p>\n
presumption could mean th.el:’person alg’ainstVA\ufb01vhom the<\/p>\n
impugned._o1=derlcarne=to’–.be\u00abpa-ssed by the check–post officer
\nmust1.be’– authorities that there was no
\nevasion oftpayment’.:oi”,in’come tax. If the intention of the<\/p>\n
legislature wer’e–..to be that irrespective of payment of tax on<\/p>\n
.’ ‘the goods –in’=questio11, rebuttal presumption was available to<\/p>\n
  whether those goods were subjected to<\/p>\n
payriient  or not would be irrelevant. In view of the fact<\/p>\n
  i.tlhat rebuttal evidence was allowed to be brought on record<\/p>\n
 the party in question, it would be open for him to<\/p>\n
 = .—-establish that in fact TP was handed over at exit check post<\/p>\n
or that the goods in question did move out of the State.
\nTherefore, presumption of sale within the State was not<\/p>\n
available to the revenue.\n<\/p>\n
‘7. In the present case, the contention ofothe’ <\/p>\n
consistently was to the effect that a1o..n__;\u00a7 wit:1″th’e-E:1;;<:\u00a3%erpt' the V'<\/p>\n
vehicie, the owner of the goods a–lsof_traveiie_c1'-.}\u00a7ecau'g.3 <\/p>\n
consignor and the consignee-._were'~ one a':r_1d{'i;1–1eH san1e.–_"<\/p>\n
Therefore, the entire V'_forn1aiitieis..:_at.__the'check Jfaost were
\nlooked after by the o'f.thhe'goods. Hence, the
\ndriver normally."\/ho VtZ0"u}tj ibe  not know the
\ndetails.    had to move from
\nManga1ore'to is outside the State. Sub-
\nsec. {Bi    contempiates that the goods<\/p>\n
irnpiorted by theetowner if moved out of the State, he has to<\/p>\n
 'ohtainsd t.ra.n's'it:V pass, i.e. the driver or the person in charge of<\/p>\n
 . the pvehicte.  presumption t1I1d\u20ac1" subwsec. (4) as aiready<\/p>\n
sta–t'edv–._'.is  rebuttal presumption and the appellant relies<\/p>\n
it upon the order of the assessment of the consignor or the<\/p>\n
dkjconsignee of the goods. It is also not disputed by the<\/p>\n
.-revenue that on account of the notice sent by the check–post<\/p>\n
I6<\/p>\n
officer pertaining to l.\\\/I\/ s. Vivek Petro, investigation was
\nmade \\m'th regard to the accounts of M\/s. Vivek Petro and<\/p>\n
even intelligence wing of the revenue also made a thoro.ugh<\/p>\n
investigation both at lviangalore and Pondi.cherv;y;.fgglufaijiass<\/p>\n
the business of M\/ s. Vivek l~"'etro. The rnate'1<ial:.that  <\/p>\n
placed before the assessing office:-? at <\/p>\n
of assessment made it clearthat whatever' goocls"that*.we1'e=.%<\/p>\n
imported, i.e. a product called\u00bbina.ptha'"wase  fact\ufb02sent to<\/p>\n
Pondhicherry and everything"w'aseacclounted atljondicherry.
\nEven certified by Central  at Pondicherry.<\/p>\n
lt is also notedthat whatexter  payable t.o the<\/p>\n
Central Excilsje Defiai'1<rri'ent wasalso paid and these are the<\/p>\n
findings. of authority. When once the<\/p>\n
assessing authority took up the assessment process as<\/p>\n
 a'-V:;:$'artA~-soi'rvt.the inve's't'igation into the missing of \/ or non-<\/p>\n
    at exit check post. so far as M\/ s. Vivek<\/p>\n
'1\u00bb~*\u00ab.=;\ufb01\u00a5o is_ coneeriied, was satisfied that all the goods that were<\/p>\n
importecl which were meant to be sent to Ponchicherry did<\/p>\n
 reach and there was not even a single incident where the<\/p>\n
tevertue was able to establish that it was sold within the<\/p>\n
State, was justified in saying that the assessee i.e. M\/s.<\/p>\n
Vivek Petro had accounted for all the goods t.hVa't44_:v.{e1'e<\/p>\n
imported by them and nothing escaped from  _<\/p>\n
View of the matter, when once by way of  'C'V\u00ab:riC\u00a7\u00a2'er1C:\u00e9,"~~<\/p>\n
the appellant. relies upon the assessmentivolrdyetr._\u00a7jertaini_ng;;to<\/p>\n
M\/ s. Vivek Petro, in the' absence oi" the 'uD:e;.3arit;.me1itl\u00b0.<\/p>\n
establising that the Consignmlentwinyyquestioindldidlynot move
\noutside the State, "was not 'justified in
\nsetting aside the OI'Cl\u20acAt'V_SV_v:'C'-All  As a
\nmatter of   not even discuss
\nwhat was   reiiied upon by the owner of
\nthe    of the assessing authority
\nhad  lfin     <\/p>\n
V. _8. _:the..'– other": hand, the learned Government<\/p>\n
  Advocate 1SA.lTEllI'  to bring to our notice that the Order<\/p>\n
  '"oi":_asisessni'e:it 'p.ert.aining to M \/ s. Vivek Petro was the subject<\/p>\n
matter _olf"lsu:'o moto revision under section 21, but the
\n revisiorial authority confirmed the said order of assessment
\n of the assessing oliicer. When once the order of assessment<\/p>\n
or M\/s. Vivek Petro has reached finality, it would not be<\/p>\n
open to the Department: to say that the presumpt.i0_n__ under<\/p>\n
sub~sec. {4} of Sec. 28–AA is still available and  is<\/p>\n
not rebutied. In View of the above diseussionarid 1:\u00e9as'oin,i'n:g,'*. '<\/p>\n
we are of the opinion, the appeal (_i_ee.ser_\\'\/es ;.:$"b'e  <\/p>\n
Accordingly, the appeal is valleiwed  <\/p>\n
order of the revisional authO1'=iei;jk"'i.da1:ec1"2i'."}\ufb01i;2OQ8.W If any<\/p>\n
amount has been Vrergpveredm the aipjielivani either
\ntowards tax or penalty; ihe  $.ha3.A1':he_j.refur1ded Within
\nthree I1101'l*L'l'1Su\ufb01'{\u00e9.I11-_th\u20ac::'da#\ufb01":Gi ;.~.e':2~c\u00a7'ip:,g'r  eopy of the order.<\/p>\n
 ….\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010 Author: Manjula Chellur K.Govindarajulu IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29% DAY OF SEP1’EMBER;.2_’Q_1’O_ PRESENT THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE1\u00bbA1\\\/LAl\\iJIjl.lA All AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE LU SALES TAX.APPEAL:..l\\;Ef)lI2i.1 OR ’20o97 BEI WEEN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124310","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-03T11:02:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-03T11:02:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3098,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-03T11:02:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-03T11:02:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-03T11:02:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":3098,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","name":"Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-03T11:02:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-do-keshava-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Geetha Bhat D\/O Keshava Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124310","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124310"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124310\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124310"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124310"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124310"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}