{"id":177148,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-12T06:39:38","modified_gmt":"2017-07-12T01:09:38","slug":"smt-geetha-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt Geetha Bhat vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Geetha 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 SEPTEMBER} \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICEAAMEANJEJLAS'CfHELI4\u00a7_UR'.0 A \n\nAND \nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE \nSALES TAX APPEAI\u00a7;j\\_IO';.22 c5E.2Q?Q_g3f\n\nBEE WEEN\n\nSmt. GeethaBhg_1t .   . \nD\/0 Sri. Kes'hziTs?ia'Bhiat =i    \nSuresh Eihat._CL1.rz1pO\\L111__cl;'   \nDongeraksri-::__  _  p_   \n\nMar1g~:1--1ar\u20acV\"'~i.       APPELLANT\n\n[By S1x\"i;uG'.  Sri. P. E. Umesh.\nM\/s. Gldb\u00e9al. Law._Ir'i(_:.' Advocates)\n\nANLi'_) RV \n\n ' ,.'VI'h-B. Agiditio\ufb01al. Commissioner\n'-- of Cpomine-rC.iaE\" Taxes\nZoiiewi, Vafnijya Terige Bhavan\n\nG'and}.1ifiagar\n\n Banga1'Qre~560 009  RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
A  i.{Ey~_s1-1. T. K. Vedamurthy, HCGP)<\/p>\n
This Appeal. is filed 1,1\/s 24(1) of the KST Act<\/p>\n
A 0′ “against the Revision Order datead 21.10.2008 passed in<\/p>\n
Ex)<\/p>\n
l\\\u00a7o.ZAC~1\/MNG\/SiVIR\u00bb18\/07-08, ‘I’.No.893\/08-09 on
\nthe file of the Addl. Commissioner of Comrr1eroial.””T-axes,
\nZone–I, Bangalore, revising and setting aside the_f-appeal
\norder and restoring the orders of EElSS\u20acS_S.I”_I1’n’31f1’te-“V:*F1VV1″E.\u00a7i<\/p>\n
penalty of the check post authority <\/p>\n
concluding the revision proceedings.<\/p>\n
This Appeal coming on
\nManjula Chellur J., delivered th”eVfo:11owing-:0 .. _ _ ”  <\/p>\n
JuncmEwT_e<\/p>\n
On our dirfi\ufb02\/9..ibn~e\u00bbAi”‘tl;3’\u00a2’ lwwatneld'”–Government
\nAdvocate placed file pertaining to
\nthe assessrI\u00a71ent;r;).f    200102, 2002-
\n03 of M   Ltd. (for short ‘M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
Viveli  The questions of
\nlaw raised.   H<\/p>\n
_ 1)  “don the facts and
\nit 0′ circtiinstlances of the ease the
\n.AV–proceedings initiated against the<\/p>\n
g  Vli=’\\,p\u00abpellant under Sections 28~\u00abAA of the
\n Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 are void<\/p>\n
0 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
\\~\u00bb\/’\\\u00ab_<\/p>\n
vx<\/p>\n
 proceedings<\/p>\n
 Appellant under Section 28~AA of the<\/p>\n
iii} A<\/p>\n
dealer under the said Act, before they<\/p>\n
were transported outside the State and<\/p>\n
the said Section is applicable only in
\ncase of transportation of <\/p>\n
goods by using Karnataka as  -I~ <\/p>\n
state’?\n<\/p>\n
Whether on the <\/p>\n
circumstances; _ of lathe casi:.:” the <\/p>\n
Respondent has..l.1c.j’0rnmitted a,n*_;er1?or”in
\nignoring the _.\u00ab~.si’Jb_rni_.ssion”‘–..of_7 the<\/p>\n
Appellant tliat they ‘  of Section<\/p>\n
28A–V_AA of gthi\u00e9 sKz\u00a7rnt;;takaisra,ies Tax Act,<\/p>\n
 ~are__  the facts of<\/p>\n
A A’ ‘i;i1:e’sVpi?esent.case’ ‘E’<\/p>\n
*  =    the facts and
\nit cirlciirnsvtances of the case the
\n Respondent is right in rejecting the<\/p>\n
;:contention of the Appellant that the<\/p>\n
initiated against the
\nKarnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is Void-
\nab–intio in View of Explanation to the
\nsaid Section according to which hirer of<\/p>\n
the goods vehicle is presumed to be its<\/p>\n
     I<\/p>\n
owner and not the registered owner of<\/p>\n
the vehicle ‘?\n<\/p>\n
iv] Whether on the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case <\/p>\n
Respondent is right in ho1ding’_thHa’t ;_. <\/p>\n
the purpose of Explanationto<\/p>\n
28uAA of the Karna=taka:A’Sa1e_s  <\/p>\n
1957, consignor of the   <\/p>\n
considered asVt.h”e-…V”hire’r’f of the ‘goods:<\/p>\n
vehicle and the said-.oWord,\u00ab.ffhirer” is
\napp1icabie””‘to only.  tr\u00e9tnsporter who
\nobtains goods xfehto1e~.._o’rijhire in case<\/p>\n
does not V\u00bbC)’\\”7y’.I1 agtoods vehicle ‘?<\/p>\n
v]_ :1 _’ the facts and<\/p>\n
*  of the Case the
\nhReSp’Qr1dder1t”nVis justified in drawing a
\n1:iresI.,1_rnpvtion that the goods in question
\nrhave been sold inside the State for the
\nhi reason that the transit pass has
\n not been surrendered at the exit check
\npost inspite of the fact that the
\nassessing authority of the consignor
\nhas in his assessment order passed<\/p>\n
under the provision of the Karnataka<\/p>\n
Sales Tax Act, 1957 given a finding
\nthat the very same goods as
\ninvolved in the present case
\ntransported out of the
\nKarnataka’?   it  it<\/p>\n
2. The admitted facts in <\/p>\n
appellant is a transporter’-._ven.gaged._in -the  of’<\/p>\n
transportation of goods. ‘nionth of’Ju1yV:2002, the
\nconsignment belonging’   by name M \/ s
\nVivek Petro: ‘:’egi$\u00a7ter\u20aced.’ Karnataka Sales<\/p>\n
Tax Aet\ufb01  eonsitgnment of a product<\/p>\n
called ‘naptv}.1’.va7.pV_t}omj\ufb01vinangalore. The contention of the
\ndepartinent   pass which was required to<\/p>\n
be ; taken ., driver or the person incharge of the<\/p>\n
 ‘   the checkpost of entry after commencement of<\/p>\n
 the ti’a.’1;1sit..a;’\\v.as not handed over at exit Check post.<\/p>\n
 a presumption under Subsection 4 of<\/p>\n
  ” Seetiotn 28\u00abAA is available to hold that the consignment<\/p>\n
 not move out of the State but was sold within the<\/p>\n
”\n<\/p>\n
 State.\n<\/p>\n
(3<\/p>\n
3. In the present case, the transit pass was___issued<\/p>\n
by Kannur CheckPost, Kannur and the exit .ch.eel_{post<\/p>\n
was Attibele near Hosur. Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
reach the destination outsidethe.Statehelof-lI.iiaVi*n_atal\u00ab:aVV’<\/p>\n
i.e., Pondicherry. On the basis’of of<\/p>\n
pass (T19) at Attibele ‘the  time\u00bb<\/p>\n
under the above sai–d._.proviision’,; ‘they not”onl’y imposed
\ntax but also levied   transported.
\nThe contentiofnyy:’ of aisslessee was apart
\nfrom the’ representative of
\nthe     Mangalore, who was
\nincharge   the commencement of the<\/p>\n
journey till  ‘reaclh-edlthe destination and he was the<\/p>\n
 p”m\u00a7’ who’t’..ptooklv”not only the transit pass but was<\/p>\n
  the duty of handing over the same at<\/p>\n
exit  post. Therefore, the owner of the transit<\/p>\n
 vehicle; was not liable to pay either the tax or the<\/p>\n
0′ ”~_p’enalty imposed. However, the order dated 10.12.2003<\/p>\n
 ” -“by the Assessing Officer goes to show that the said<\/p>\n
defence was not accepted and they proceeded to impose
\ntax of Rs.1_0,800\/– and another Rs.i0,800\/was penalty.
\n‘1’ his was challenged before the appellate -in
\nKST Appeal No.209\/03-04.\n<\/p>\n
4. The appellate authoriityjgin;<\/p>\n
after taking into consideration that the cassessrnent’ton~ag<\/p>\n
the return submitted by the ‘goods i.e.,<\/p>\n
Vivek Petro, Mangaiore, ooncl  there was no<\/p>\n
evasion of any Therefore,’&onl”‘ass’umptions taxes
\ncannot b\u20ac\u00a7~.,,1e:v’ie_d..vJhen thevlllalsselssee was able to
\nestablish’ that’:’t.her>e”i\u00bbwas’ample evidence to prove the
\nmovement of goods” .o1;1tside the State and not to sell<\/p>\n
 theStat_e,”, According to him, the order of<\/p>\n
‘ Viwlassessinentvpassed under Section 12(2) of the Act by the<\/p>\n
“Assistant:  Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,<\/p>\n
Mangalore, indicates there was no evasion of any taxes<\/p>\n
”   all the goods imported by M \/ s Vivek Petro were the<\/p>\n
 subject matter of assessment and all the consignments<\/p>\n
‘ Hf-‘xi:\n<\/p>\n
which were to reach Pondicherry unit belonged to the<\/p>\n
very owner M\/s Vivek Petro but did in fa’ct’}.re\u00abaCh<\/p>\n
Pondicherry which was evident by the  p<\/p>\n
of the Superintendent of Centra1._4Exoi.seV’,” <\/p>\n
dated 9.9.2003. He also refers to <\/p>\n
naptha in favour of the consignor and also’-.le’t.tei”s~ issued’ V<\/p>\n
by the Deputy Comrnerciai.—-‘llaiz. of-Pondicheriy.
\nThe assessing authority.’headf’:’e:t3n\u00a5\u00a2l.l:ioV:.aponclusion that
\nall the entries_:effected  ‘did move out of
\nthe State?    ythle\ufb02appeilate authority
\n  the appellant, setting
\nasidelfclie  lcheck post officer dated<\/p>\n
10. VThea”v_revilsional authority took up the<\/p>\n
  rn-atter-ebyvi-vvay of”suo~n1otto revision and issued a show<\/p>\n
  eause::n.otiee.. the assessee calling upon him to explain<\/p>\n
)ClA’l\ufb01f’vCC’).I~’i~1.’:.CuT’El.’t\u00e9 of the notice. The assessee appeared<\/p>\n
 before-plthe revisionai authority and submitted the<\/p>\n
Q’ explanation. However, the revisionai authority found<\/p>\n
 .._.the order of the appellate authority as improper and<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
prejudicial to the interest of the State revenue for the
\nfoiiowing reasons:\n<\/p>\n
1. The appellant is the owner of
\nVehicle has obtained trans.i,tf._ V
\nNo.0l85594 dated””0E5p.07.0.2_z”7._for}
\ntransportation of Napt:’_Vna.–5 from\u00bb l&’jTC:I}”..,.A
\nKannur. but failed to “–surren.der’ the;
\nTransit pass at  Exit” Che_ck-V_P’ost’~at’:
\nAttibele on or ‘o4efore_ 080,070.02.  On
\nenquiry through””correspondence Vwith
\ncro of Attibele \u20ac;i1Ve\u00a7;’Rj~ Fest the CTO
\nKannur ascertained? that t.l_1e frecords of
\nCheek. pQ’st”V’do not-.Vsho&\u00a7.rpassage of
\n ‘_’JQl:’1’iCl\u00a73V. No.  4i'<A.r1–9-9 16 lhrough<\/p>\n
 lChee'i{'3'–;Poste:p–:..grid transit pass was
\n"alls'o'\u00ab:.;:,nQL__"surr'C11:\u00a71er\u00e9d and there by
\nA i'eontra;\\}ened.\u00a2'_Section 28AA{2) of KST Act<\/p>\n
— 1957;a’a “= A<\/p>\n
The ” smart v..\u00a7I’\u00ab”.J”udgment of Hon. Supreme Court of
\n 0′ India in the case of civil Appeal N03787
\n7ff_of 2006 M\/s K.GOPALA KRISHNA
\nW.~’SHE’l’I’Y AND OTHERS vs STATE OF’
\nKARNATAKA with CA Nos.3788~3844 of
\n2006 dated 25.07.2007. Therefore it is
\nnow proposed to set aside the appeal
\norder in so for as the provisions of
\nSection 28AA(4) & (5) are concerned
\nand to remit the matter of CPO for fresh<\/p>\n
I0<\/p>\n
consideration in the light of the above
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
3. The FAA has misread the prowsione-“V;~  V.
\nof Section 28-[6] of KST Act’while”
\nallowing the appeal as _t_h_”e~-._ ‘said
\nprovisions relate .to~._con-;:1usion;
\nprovisional assessment  oifder ‘1 by_ “the
\ninspecting authority  ._ T ” ‘ whicph –. y _  , , 3  –
\nindependent of’ .provisi_ons of\u00bb”‘Lsection”;
\n28AA[-4]. The proceedings’ .;,1
\nand 28AA (4) are d’independentd’andg the
\npowers are _.c’onfinn’ed with  the
\ninspecting— authority” ~-.. _’ari’d _ the CPO
\nrespectively. ;_”On7’the__ b-asis*._of orders
\npassed u\/st-2_8f[6]–.by the ACCT [Ins] II
\nMangaiore the,’ FAA”_jV~sVh”oiild not have
\n_li71_1ke_’d ,th.is provisional order with the
\n qL_1″antificati–ofn'”of made 11\/ s 28AA
\n“‘{.-{H n3.ade_,by”‘–fj-PQ. }Therefore, on this
\n“tAco.unti:’fpalso;\u00bb.Vthe appeal order passed by\n<\/p>\n
-_ ‘ }?’A’A”‘suffer’syplfro1’n~ illegality and liable to
\n= be ~q1ia;_shed__l  ~ , <\/p>\n
 V .. f–Th’erefore it is hereby proposed to<\/p>\n
set. aside the said appeal order and
\n  alternatively to remit the matter to the
\n“Check Post Officer STOP, Kannur for<\/p>\n
V  p”fre~sh consideration in View of above<\/p>\n
‘  mentioned Judgment.”\n<\/p>\n
 the orders of the appellate authority were<\/p>\n
 yrevised and set–as1’de. The orders of assessment and<\/p>\n
  penalty of the check post authority were restored.<\/p>\n
5. Section 28–AA of the Karnataka Sales  Act
\nreads as under: S S<\/p>\n
“Transit of goods by road   A V’<\/p>\n
State and issue transitfvpass:\n<\/p>\n
(1)Where a vehicie a
\ntaxable under t.hisAct.-AS’ T’  A  S\n<\/p>\n
(a) frorn-[ally p.1″ace’
\n . State…  ” -~ -.for ii any
\n‘ —.._..’:p1ac_e  State and
\n   jthis State; or\n<\/p>\n
(b)    V goods are
\nH S’  into the State from<\/p>\n
____ H  any\u00ab.._._p_1ace outside the
\n‘\u00ab.,rc.Q_untry and such goods are
\n carried to any place<\/p>\n
_ V  “outside the State,<\/p>\n
 they drniVer.VVorAy.any other person–in~charge of
\n_v:sn.ch”‘\u00ab\u00ab._Vehic1e shall furnish the necessary
\n  and obtain a transit pass in
\nd.11ph;:’ate containing such particulars as may<\/p>\n
S ..  “prescribed, from the officer–in–~charge of
\nthe first check post or barrier after his entry
\ninto the State or after movement has<\/p>\n
commenced from the State as the case may<\/p>\n
be, or from the officer empowered for the<\/p>\n
purposes of subsection (3) of Section
\nupon interception of the goods vehiele–..aVf.t’er’.j’  <\/p>\n
its entry into the State or after movein__entV*ahasll *  it<\/p>\n
commenced as the Case may be.\n<\/p>\n
[2)The driver or thepersAonain;Charg_eof’<\/p>\n
Vehicle shall deliver.._Vp:l’w_ipthinV’ .the,_
\ntime a copy of theV….l’:Clli:”A’e*.,nsVi_t p.as”s.l_ohtained
\nunder sub–seCAtion'[  to the’ \u00bb .,o1’fieer–in–charge
\nat the last checl<p'ost  his exit<\/p>\n
from the <\/p>\n
(3}lii'4llio;I"–.angt diheipigoods carried in a<\/p>\n
  aftt\u00e9rlll entry into the State<\/p>\n
'"{_or afterl'eomlni,enr;e'ment of movement, as the<\/p>\n
case  "  moved out of the State<\/p>\n
' " within'*t_hHe time stipulated in the transit pass,<\/p>\n
 i,fhe" ownerl\ufb02ofl the goods vehicle shall furnish<\/p>\n
   'officer empowered in this behalf the<\/p>\n
 "for such delay and other particulars, if<\/p>\n
 "-anyglthereof and such officer shall after due<\/p>\n
"er1quiry extend the time of exist by suitably<\/p>\n
amending the transit pass:\n<\/p>\n
rs<\/p>\n
Provided that where the goods carried by a<\/p>\n
vehicle are, after their entry into the State,<\/p>\n
(or after Commencement of movement, as <\/p>\n
case may be) transported outside  <\/p>\n
by any other vehicle or conveyance.,..,t_h~eVV<\/p>\n
of proving that the go’ods”h_ave .; <\/p>\n
moved out of the State  lorilthve iii<\/p>\n
of the vehicle who’l__’c;riginal\u00bbl_V\ufb01
\ngoods into the State.  l’  V<\/p>\n
[4)lf the driver –person–in–charge
\nof the vehicleA…d-{ties  ‘lvvith sub-
\n it;i_shai’l beiiilpresiilhed that the
\ngoods fhave.–‘been sold within<\/p>\n
 the State_ by iih’e.___ow1_’;er of the vehicle and<\/p>\n
shall,’  anything contained in<\/p>\n
sub=~.se’ctior1   section 5, be assessed to<\/p>\n
 tax bylnlthezoffipcer empowered in this behalf in<\/p>\n
 ‘prescribed manner.\n<\/p>\n
  owner of the vehicle [having<\/p>\n
v~.obta’ined the transit pass as provided under<\/p>\n
it 4-3i1b–section [1] fails to deliver the same as<\/p>\n
provided under sub–seetion(2], he shall be<\/p>\n
liable to pay by way of penalty a sum not<\/p>\n
exceeding double the amount of tax leviable<\/p>\n
on the goods transported.\n<\/p>\n
[6)The amount of tax and the  <\/p>\n
levied under this Section shall be recovvered <\/p>\n
in the prescribed manner.\u00bb  <\/p>\n
(7′)Where the owner of the veh.i’c1e”Whvo-..d”’ ‘<\/p>\n
is assessed to tax under sub–vsect.io’n 14),” ‘is<\/p>\n
carrying after such :a.ssess’mer1t,’ any gdods
\ntaxable under   Vehicle
\nfrom any P151C.5:1_ *~01.i.t’i3i::C1\u20ac'”‘*\ufb02i\u00e9:\/,—“V”5tat\u20ac (or
\nmoveme13:t:g1’frorr_1  as the case<\/p>\n
may” be) “V-and  any other place<\/p>\n
‘ V  _V  ‘VSta’te:.’and dhispassing through the<\/p>\n
State;  authority may demand<\/p>\n
fromfsuch  an amount equivalent to<\/p>\n
 two tiinesddthve tax ieviable on such goods<\/p>\n
7unde.1f this  as security.\n<\/p>\n
it  __ ‘dV~[.:;8′]V”.1’he prescribed authority after being
\nsatis\ufb01ed that the goods carried in the goods<\/p>\n
“iy3ehic1e in respect of which the security<\/p>\n
amount under sub–section(7) was collected,
\nhas passed through the State, shall refund<\/p>\n
such security amount to the owner.<\/p>\n
{9)The prescribed authority may by an
\norder adjust the whole or any
\nsecurity amount towards any amount;o1l’.’
\nor penalty payable under this
\nsuch owner).     4′<\/p>\n
Explanation\u00bb In case
\nowned by a person
\ntransportation of  by
\nperson, the hirer of pthedjehicle shal1’~fo’r: the
\npurposes of this  to be the<\/p>\n
owner ofathe vehi*e].e:}p,   l l<\/p>\n
6.  4 of sec. 28–AA
\nof   rebuttal presumption.\n<\/p>\n
Rebuttai  mean the person against<\/p>\n
whom thelirnpu.gned”~~olrder came to be passed by the<\/p>\n
 ”  _  oftieer–‘I’riust be able to satisfy the authorities<\/p>\n
‘that theiielliyas no evasion of payment of income tax. If<\/p>\n
 intention of the legislature were to be that<\/p>\n
 irrespeetive of payment of tax on the goods in question,<\/p>\n
 “rebuttal presumption was available to the assessee,<\/p>\n
glthen whether those goods were subjected to payment of<\/p>\n
;,mi<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
tax or not would be irrelevant. In View of the fact that<\/p>\n
rebuttal evidence was allowed to be brought .onl:’rec.ord<\/p>\n
by the party in question, it would be opeil <\/p>\n
establish that in fact TP was h.and.ed
\npost or that the goods in questi.onl.A_dild <\/p>\n
State. Therefore, presumption\u00bb ofhlsale’ x2srithi”1~ilti1e’llState’<\/p>\n
was not available to the rexrle’rio.le.  \ufb02<\/p>\n
7. In the prels’ent~  l.thlevAA.lv:co.ntention of the
\nappellant   along with
\nthe driver”   of the goods also
\ntravelled  and the consignee were
\none   “l’:ll’::l_.inelrefore, the entire formalities at<\/p>\n
 postvvv_e_re. looked after by the representative of<\/p>\n
‘ Lethe goods..ll”‘vHence, the driver normally who would be<\/p>\n
“illiterate.l–“V;oiild not know the details. Apparently in this<\/p>\n
case.l}_t.hle goods had to move from Mangalore to<\/p>\n
A [T 1’ AA.Vl5lo\u00e9\u00a71dicherry which is outside the State. Sub–sec. (2) of<\/p>\n
bisection 28–AA contemplates that the goods imported by<\/p>\n
 L)?\n<\/p>\n
l   Pondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
“Department at Pondioherry.\n<\/p>\n
the owner if moved out of the State, he has to___obtain<\/p>\n
transit pass, i.e. the driver or the person in<\/p>\n
the Vehicle. The presumption under
\nalready stated is a rebuttal\u00bb'”presurnption’4  the’;
\nappellant relies upon the orderbtlof <\/p>\n
consignor or the Consignee~v..t:::0df._pthehvgoodsi  not V<\/p>\n
disputed by the revenue thatne_onu:’aooo1int’-of”the notice
\nsent by the check~po’st._’ofiieer::V to NUS. Vivek
\nPetro,   regard to the
\naccounts”   even intelligence wing
\nof thiellrevennve  ‘adthorough investigation both
\nat Mangalore’ \u00a55o’nd’i\u00bbctierry, so far as the business of<\/p>\n
M \/_s… \\1fiveuR Fetro.  material that was placed before<\/p>\n
  alssessing officer at the time of final order of<\/p>\n
  Inade it clear that whatever goods that were<\/p>\n
in2..po1jtedi\u00a7’iie. a product called ‘naptha’ was in fact sent<\/p>\n
 .. to I50-ridhicherry and everything was accounted at<\/p>\n
Even certi\ufb01ed by Central Excise<\/p>\n
It is also noted that<\/p>\n
I 9<\/p>\n
justified in setting aside th.e orders of the appellate<\/p>\n
authority. As a matter of fact. the revisional.\u00abjaiitherity<\/p>\n
did not even discuss What was the rebuttal.evidence;<\/p>\n
relied upon by the owner of the ve\u00bbh_icle’_:anjd”virhether the t j a<\/p>\n
order of the assessing authoritlvhtadt’treachled, <\/p>\n
no 8. On the other hand..; tth_e learned” Government<\/p>\n
Advocate is fair enoiigh to  ‘our notice that the
\norder of assessment Apertaiiiinig  -Vivek Petro was
\nthe subject:m\u00a73.tter_hf  rnoto’ li’ev=ision under section
\n21, but the.revi’s.ionaii’ .ai”1tho’rity confirmed the said order
\nof assessrrienttlof tthewegssessing officer. When once the<\/p>\n
order of assessr1f1_eri;t or M\/ s. Vivek Petro has reached<\/p>\n
‘ ;fina1ity;~iit\u00ab._vvould not be open to the Department to say<\/p>\n
“that the’.t-jjresizmption under sub~sec. {4} of Sec. 28~AA is<\/p>\n
stilllavailable and the same is not rebutted. In View of<\/p>\n
 the: above discussion and reasoning, we are of the<\/p>\n
t\ufb01opiriion, the appeal deserves to be allowed.<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
Accordingiy, the appeal is allowed setting aside the
\norder of the revisional authority dated 21.10.2008. E1′<\/p>\n
any amount has been recovered from the Vap\ufb01ijeiiant<\/p>\n
either towards tax or penalty. the <\/p>\n
refunded within three months from the_-<iate:'i'ec'eVipt of <\/p>\n
a Copy of the order.   ..    A <\/p>\n
%?\u00a7DGE<\/p>\n
Brn,\/Sak " ' ~ .25 _V 31:1 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Geetha 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 SEPTEMBER} PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICEAAMEANJEJLAS’CfHELI4\u00a7_UR’.0 A AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SALES TAX APPEAI\u00a7;j\\_IO’;.22 c5E.2Q?Q_g3f BEE WEEN Smt. GeethaBhg_1t . . […]<\/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-177148","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Geetha 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-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 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-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=\"2017-07-12T01:09:38+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=\"15 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-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geetha-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 vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-12T01:09:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geetha-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2868,\"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-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geetha-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geetha-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt Geetha 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\":\"2017-07-12T01:09:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geetha-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-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-geetha-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 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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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 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-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Geetha 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-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":"2017-07-12T01:09:38+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-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 vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-12T01:09:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":2868,"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-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-bhat-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","name":"Smt Geetha 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":"2017-07-12T01:09:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-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-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geetha-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 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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/177148","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=177148"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177148\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}