{"id":41120,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-22T00:16:33","modified_gmt":"2019-03-21T18:46:33","slug":"mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr Ivan S Muthu vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Mr Ivan S Muthu vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur K.Govindarajulu<\/div>\n
   \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, EANGADORE\nDATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER; \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HDNBLE MRS. JUSTICE(...NLANJ_U'LA'.C'H'E'[.I3LTR_ \" \"\n\nAND \n\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTTQE \nSALES TAX  O: 141 DE: 260:3}\nBETWEEN J % 3 AL \nMr.IVar1 S. Muthu   A\n\nS\/0 Edwin }\\.\u00ab'Iu.t_hu _\nWhite Hoju..S'.e4   ~ '\n\nBejai     \nBe3a?.PoTstAN NA 31      \nMangaioit V   ' -  APPELLANT\n\n(By Sri.'G_. K.  and Sri. P. E. Umesh,\n G10b*al_Law--In'e. Advocates]\n\n  \"'}S_Sh\u00e9E'A. cE--\u00a3iiii%Vc\u00a71-1f;ii's Commissioner\n'-of 'Comr1:i\"erCD;ia1 Taxes\n\nZane-VI', 'V\u00e9LDijya Terige Bhavan\nGandhinagar\n\n AA I3anga1Dre--56O 009  RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
”  T. K. Vedamurthy, HCGP)<\/p>\n
~\\ ‘ ‘
\n\\ (N.\n<\/p>\n
\\3<\/p>\n
This Appeal is \ufb01led u\/s 24(1) of the KST Act
\nagainst the Revision Order dated 20.10.2008 passed in
\nNo.ZAC–1\/MNG\/SMR-22\/O7–O8, T.No.694\/08-09 on
\nthe file of the Addl. Commissioner of Cornrnercia1___Taxes,
\nZone–l, Bangalore, revising and setting aside the appeal
\norder and restoring the orders of assessnf1″en”t. “and<\/p>\n
penalty of the check post authority and:V”‘accor_dingly<\/p>\n
concluding the revision proceedings.<\/p>\n
This Appeal coming on <\/p>\n
Manjula Chellur J ., delivered the folltoiwing\ufb01l
\nOn our direction,   Government
\nAdvocate placed  file pertaining to<\/p>\n
the assessinentof  ‘foi*,__the_ y:.earl2001–O2, 2002\u00bb<\/p>\n
O3    Ltd. (for short ‘M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
Vivel{7Pet-ro’  is perused. The questions of<\/p>\n
lavv-1faised”are’as’ un der:\n<\/p>\n
 3-i}  ..__Whether on the facts and
\nit  ciifcumstances of the case the
\nA A j_ proceedings the<\/p>\n
 Appellant under Sections 28–AA of the<\/p>\n
Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 are void<\/p>\n
initiated against<\/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
dealer in the State Act, before they<\/p>\n
were transported Outside the State?’ <\/p>\n
Whether on the<\/p>\n
“:1.\n<\/p>\n
circumstances of the .casel,:p the<\/p>\n
Respondent has committed l’an’:le’rr_o’r.. f<\/p>\n
ignoring the _ suomission * itheg’ it<\/p>\n
Appellant that thjegprovilsionsupofj
\n28–AA of__the Karrlatalia Sales..Ta:\u00a73Act,
\n1957′ are-not a;.pplioabie.to _ the facts of<\/p>\n
the present_ca_se’.l?   A V’<\/p>\n
    facts and
\n1    the case the
\n is  in rejecting the<\/p>\n
A’ A  Appellant that the<\/p>\n
 “procsedlirigggsf initiated agaisnt the<\/p>\n
Applelllani: under Section 28–AA of the<\/p>\n
 A._Karnvatalka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is Void-<\/p>\n
 .ab_;initio in View of Explanation to the<\/p>\n
A A j_ said Section according to which hirer of<\/p>\n
 the goods Vehicle is presumed to be its<\/p>\n
owner and not the registered owner of<\/p>\n
the Vehicle?\n<\/p>\n
facts”\n<\/p>\n
iv}<\/p>\n
Whether on the facts and<\/p>\n
Circumstances of the case the<\/p>\n
Respondent is right in holding that for<\/p>\n
the purpose of Explanation to
\n28~AA of the Karnataka Sales
\n1957, consignor of the
\nconsidered as the ‘:’~h’irer’f
\nVehicle and the said *\u00bb.i_i_fo~r(i, <\/p>\n
applicable to only adddtraiasporter <\/p>\n
obtains goods  ondddiease
\nhe does r1″o.t_gown”a ‘gojodstyehicIe”‘?”Vv<\/p>\n
Whether  VA ,_on”  ugfaets and
\ncireurnstaneesdii  ease the<\/p>\n
x”Resp_oncient.___is_ justified in drawing a
\n‘- presufr1pt’ion\u00bb\u00abt}’1at the goods in question<\/p>\n
 , have ‘v.bee_n”so1d inside the State for the<\/p>\n
oniyreason that the transit pass has<\/p>\n
 “not been surrendered at the exit check
\n inspite of the fact that the<\/p>\n
assessing authority of the consignor<\/p>\n
has in his assessment order passed
\nunder 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 ‘?\n<\/p>\n
2. The admitted facts in the prese.nt:ttt}teVVt <\/p>\n
appellant is a transporter engaged<ptAi11–''ih{e_.' '<\/p>\n
transportation of goods. h'1.the  Vtbje'.<\/p>\n
consignment belonging to  tjgame M\/ s
\nVivek Petro — a registere_d   Karnataka Sales
\nTax Act, 1957.  of a product
\ncalled  contention of the
\ndepart1'iivent'i3Ia:si;,;  which was required to
\nbe ta};en.:_  the person incharge of the<\/p>\n
vehicle at\u00ab..theVe:_1tr3r checkpost after commencement of<\/p>\n
   Was'not'har1ded over at the exit check post.<\/p>\n
  presumption under Subsection 4 of<\/p>\n
t\ufb01ueetiovn. is available to hold that the consignment<\/p>\n
 did not move out of the State but was sold Within the<\/p>\n
V' 'T  <\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
3. in the present case, the transit pass washissued<\/p>\n
by Kannur CheckPost, Kannur and the exit _.C’hyfCC\u00bb_1{pvost<\/p>\n
was Attibele near Hosur. Admittedly, <\/p>\n
reach the destination outside_.the.h  ‘ 0. <\/p>\n
i.e., Pondicherry. On the basis”.of::hoh–recei;it <\/p>\n
pass {T13} at Attibele  the  time\u00bb<\/p>\n
under the above sat-d._.proyi’sioij–, they niotxmly imposed
\ntax but also levie\ufb01 ‘V_4ai\u00a33\u00bby  transported.<\/p>\n
The Contention:-.of  was apart
\nfrom the?  representative of
\nthe    Mangalore, who was
\ninchargVe4′.of  the Commencement of the<\/p>\n
journey tiil hhitrreaehetds the destination and he was the<\/p>\n
 hoia\u00e9’ 5w.ho’..AtookAVhot only the transit pass but was<\/p>\n
   the duty of handing over the same at exit<\/p>\n
eh__eCk__v Therefore, the owner of the vehicle was not<\/p>\n
 nlhiablzeveto pay either the tax or the penalty imposed.<\/p>\n
0′ *_vVf’IG”\\}\\7E3V\u20acI’, the order dated 09.12.2003 by the Assessing<\/p>\n
~’:Officer goes to show that the said defence was not<\/p>\n
accepted and they proceeded to impose  of<\/p>\n
Rs.lO,800\/– and another Rs.l0,800\/~ as penalty;\u00ab\u00ab.i\u00bb_lThis<\/p>\n
was challenged before the appellate <\/p>\n
Appeal No.213\/03-04.\n<\/p>\n
4. The appellate autho;rity7..A_ilri:lthe– <\/p>\n
after taking into consideratiiorig that __the_ass’ess’rr1e:11t on’<\/p>\n
the return submitted’ by of ‘tire-goods i.e.,
\nVivek Petro, l\\\/iangaloxl-\u00a7;~’  there was no
\nevasion of on:j’assumption taxes
\ncannot  the assessee being able
\nto ‘goods outside the State
\nand  =  State. According to the<\/p>\n
appe.llate4l’a*dt1’1o’:”ityi  order of assessment passed<\/p>\n
  S”ectionll”ll’2l(2] of the Act by the Assistant<\/p>\n
 lC1;omrr,iiss’1or1er~ of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore,<\/p>\n
indicates there was no evasion of any taxes and all the<\/p>\n
 .. goods imported by M\/s Vivek Petro were the subject<\/p>\n
l”~._ll1’r1atter of assessment and all the consignments which<\/p>\n
Vlwere to reach Pondicherry unit belonged to the very<\/p>\n
owner M \/ s Vivek Petro but did in fact reach Pondicherry<\/p>\n
which was evident by the Very endo1’sement_p”of<._the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Central Excise, <\/p>\n
9.9.2003. It also refers to the r_elea_se of <\/p>\n
naptha in favour of the consigncr and'fa1s'o _l'et.ters"<\/p>\n
by the Deputy Commercia]..:T~ax (A)ff1'.cer__of: <\/p>\n
The assessing authority  conchisivon that all
\nthe entries effected ._moVe out of the
\nState. Basecikon  authority
\nallowed  the appellant, setting
\naside"  post officer dated
\n  authority took up the<\/p>\n
matter by 'w_ay.o'f suo\u00a5'inotto revision and issued a show<\/p>\n
 A c'ause"inotice to thlelassessee calling upon him to explain<\/p>\n
1 lithe' c:ont'ents_}~of the notice. The assessee appeared<\/p>\n
ljefore' '  revisional authority and submitted the<\/p>\n
 . explanation. However, the revisional authority found<\/p>\n
l\ufb01lltliel order of the appellate authority as improper and<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
prejudicial to the interest of the State revenue for the
\nfollowing reasons:\n<\/p>\n
1. The appellant is the owner
\nVehicle has obtained transj_tj”‘r.ul3’a:ss. V
\nNo.0185798 dated””’14fC.7.Q2:”7._for-T.
\ntransportation of l\\l’apt1_p.’1a..–l’frorn’-.
\nKannur, but failed to, l’surrender” thet
\nTransit pass at Exit” Cheek;~,_Post”‘at”l
\nAttibele on or bergrep 1s.o7{o’2.  On
\nenquiry tl’i1jougl,”1″”(:orrels’pondenee “with
\ncro of Ambeie. C.j2pi1Vee’lrj r\u00e9ost the cro
\nKannur ascertained’ that” ‘fti\u20ac_ ‘records of
\nCh\u20acCl{_ postmldo; I:i0t’–.v_sl”1V()W ‘passage of
\n No. 92%-“5775 through<\/p>\n
 lCh’eok”3Postojp*:-a\ufb01d_ transit pass was
\n“also’l\u00ab:.;:r1ot__’su’i-trendered and there by
\n‘ o\u20acir1tra’$fen._ed\u00ab.Sectiolnl 28AA(2] of KST Act<\/p>\n
= 1.9522\u00bb.    n<\/p>\n
2.l’.__’l’hove V’ FAA”  wrongly allowed the
\n‘Appeal irz so far as levy of tax and<\/p>\n
V penaltyf____&y.u\/s 28AA[4] 8: 28AA(5]
\nconcerned which is against the<\/p>\n
a “Judgment of Hon. Supreme Court of<\/p>\n
  ” Iridia in the case of civil Appeal No.3787
\n‘ Vfjof’ 2006 M\/s KGOPALA KRISHNA
\n AND OTHERS vs STATE or
\nKARNATAKA with CA. Nos.3788–3844 of
\n2006 dated 25.07.2007. Therefore it is
\nhereby proposed to set aside the said
\nappeal order in so far as the provisions<\/p>\n
of Section 28AA (4) <3: (5) are Concerned<\/p>\n
and to remit the matter to the Check<\/p>\n
Post Office for fresh consideration in
\nView of above mentioned Judgment.<\/p>\n
3. The FAA has misread the provision of
\nSection 28–{6) of KST Act while allowing
\nthe appeal as the said provisionsMifelatef.
\nto conclusion of provisional asses_snienjt._
\norder by the inspecting a11t,h0rif.y._wh’iCh
\nis independent of provisions'”of”‘-sleotions
\n28AA[4). The proceedings7.u,e”s.  \u00ab
\nand 28AA (4) are inkiepe’rirlentt.sand tile.’
\npowers are confirmed wit’i1_”‘ the;
\ninspecting au’tho*:?ity land. _the
\nrespectively. Oilligtlie basis “of-Z orders
\npassed u[s 28(6.)…by._ti1e ACCT,_H[In’s) II
\nMangalore “the -,should not have
\nlinked this’ ‘ipro’v,i_s’io}nal’ with the
\nquanti\ufb01cation vQ1’vt_a:\u00a7\u20acS.”~1’n&Ct\u20acf “LI\/S 28AA
\n(4) rnade {by Thercgfore, on this
\nc?ouijLt~’  the appealle-rder passed by
\n “FAA.”su:ffe1’sy\u00abfro~m””illegality and liable to<\/p>\n
Ultimatelytlthel’  the appellate authority were<\/p>\n
revised and “s-et;asi.de. The orders of assessment and<\/p>\n
‘  check post authority were restored.<\/p>\n
A  28-AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act reads
\nas4llL1nd.er.3<\/p>\n
“Transit of goods by road through the State
\nand issue of transit pass– (1)Where a vehicle<\/p>\n
is carrying goods taxable under this Act-<\/p>\n
(a) from any place outside the State<\/p>\n
and bound for any piaoevdoutside<\/p>\n
the State and passes <\/p>\n
State: or<\/p>\n
(b) and whirghi ”\n<\/p>\n
into the’—_ state’ \ufb01\u00bbo_m :’anyj”eeA\u00ab.9Ia\u00a2e<\/p>\n
outside the ‘country;\n<\/p>\n
good’s’e’s\u00bb,:are being  to any<\/p>\n
V  place’ ‘oats: the State; ” it
\nthe driver or Apersion\u00e9inzgcharge of such
\nVehicle shall  -the  information
\nand  .ti?ar;’:sit oass”–ifiv–\u00abd\u00bbup1icate Containing<\/p>\n
such’   Sprescribed, from the<\/p>\n
,offi-cer\u00e9fin-Eharrge9 of th”e-fi1’st check post or barrier<\/p>\n
axaftei  the State or after movement<\/p>\n
hasoon1me’noed”‘—-fron1 the State as the case may<\/p>\n
— ., be, or .fro1n5the officer empowered for the purposes<\/p>\n
  V..sub–‘se1:tion (3) of Section 28–A, upon<\/p>\n
A V’ ”  –vinte1’oep_tion of the goods vehicle after its entry into<\/p>\n
“th”e_v_v.._S’tate or after movement has commenced as<\/p>\n
t’h’e-ease may be.\n<\/p>\n
[2)The driver or the person–in–charge of the<\/p>\n
A vehicle shall deliver Within the stipulated time a<\/p>\n
copy of the transit pass obtained under sub-<\/p>\n
section{1) to the officer–in–charge at the last<\/p>\n
eheckpost or barrier before his exit from the State.<\/p>\n
(3) If for any reason, the goods carrie.dS’ei_n a<\/p>\n
goods vehicle are, after entry into  ,:[or<\/p>\n
after Commencement of movement,”‘\u00ab.as.:the teased’<\/p>\n
may be) not moved out of .the..Stat’eVi2{fitii’int’l1ejAtimeu ‘<\/p>\n
stipulated in the transit’\u00bb.:4pass,..itheoi>ifner:”Qf”iAii1e<\/p>\n
goods Vehicle shVaii.4_’  to’73  bfficejr\ufb02<\/p>\n
empowered in this    such<\/p>\n
delay and other partEC:’o”l_ars’;\u00bbr._if ai:y~,\u00bb thereof and
\nsuch officer shaj\ufb021.,aftefrV:.dije,’:i’ei1q1iiry extend the
\ntime of exist _b3r.,..S:uita,b1y” the transit<\/p>\n
.\u00bbpass_:. ‘ <\/p>\n
-.Proifided\u00e9’ithat:”‘wl*iere the goods carried by a<\/p>\n
\\fehic].e Sare;~.AVafter_”their entry into the State, [or<\/p>\n
 after” eoiimiexieefnent of movement, as the case<\/p>\n
 ;_rI.:1aj,rA be]V”V’tr’ar1sported outside the State by any<\/p>\n
  -.othe3f”‘vehie1e or conveyance, the onus of proving<\/p>\n
  goods have actually moved out of the<\/p>\n
 shall be on the owner of the vehicle who<\/p>\n
” .o3}iginaI1y brought the goods into the State.<\/p>\n
(4)If the driver or any other perso11–in–eharge of<\/p>\n
the vehicle does not comply with subsection (2), it<\/p>\n
shall be presumed that the goods carried thereby
\nhave been sold within the State by the ‘owner of<\/p>\n
the vehicle and shall, notwithstanding’<\/p>\n
contained in subsection {5} of —<\/p>\n
assessed to tax by the of\ufb01rcer <\/p>\n
behalf in the prescribed rr1anner_:’<\/p>\n
(5)If the owner  Vehvicle’thavirrgpbtained’S<\/p>\n
the transit pass as pro_yi’ded_yunde1″\u00ab subjvsection (1)
\nfails to deliVeri—.__the s_ar::_.e.:.as=.proVided under sub~<\/p>\n
section[2}, he shall_  :liablve’d-l.Ito__Cpay by way of<\/p>\n
penalty sumlinot e.Xceedi_ngvdouble the amount of<\/p>\n
taxp-le:?iabl.e-‘;ori  goo’ds:ftra_nsported.<\/p>\n
 tttt   and the penalty levied<\/p>\n
‘under _tirtsc..Secrtio’i1__ shall be recovered in the<\/p>\n
pr”escribed_ mariner.\n<\/p>\n
.._(7]Vlfxhere-~’the owner of the vehicle who is<\/p>\n
 to tax under subsection [4], is carrying<\/p>\n
 assessment, any goods taxable under<\/p>\n
 in a goods Vehicle from any place outside<\/p>\n
” ._the State (or movement from within the State, as<\/p>\n
the case may be) and bound for any other place
\noutside the State and is passing through the<\/p>\n
State, the prescribed authority may demand from<\/p>\n
such owner an amount equivalent to two times the
\ntax leviable on such goods under  as<\/p>\n
security.\n<\/p>\n
(8)The prescribed authority”‘v* <\/p>\n
satisfied that the goods ca,rried._  <\/p>\n
Vehicle in respect of which the security’ amdountp<\/p>\n
under sub~section(7}-..,.:WaS chollectedg passed’<\/p>\n
through the State,  ‘refund”\u00ab.such\u00a7 security
\namount to the o_\\XrI1_er:,_  ” ‘ <\/p>\n
(9]Thf3 prescribed ‘ ivihiay by an
\norder  “iivhoipe”–“or…..:any part of<\/p>\n
sec’%irit_3r”Vamo.untfjto\\}Vardszany amount of tax<\/p>\n
  this section by<\/p>\n
“such owmer},   it ‘ <\/p>\n
 B;xp1Vania:i\u00a2ri’\u00a7 In case where a Vehicle
\n Eowriedi dby ____ _.\u00aba person is hired for
\nltransiportation of goods by some other<\/p>\n
it  hirer of the Vehicle shall for the
\n of this section, be deemed to be the<\/p>\n
* voivmer of the vehicie}. ”\n<\/p>\n
6. Presumption under sub–section [4] of sec. 28~<\/p>\n
     of the Act undisputedly is a rebuttable presumption.<\/p>\n
Rebuttabie presumption would mean the person against<\/p>\n
whom the impugned order came to be passed.t:”tf_%.;\\’_?”‘-the<\/p>\n
checkwpost officer must be abie to satisfy
\nthat there was no evasion of .pa3rrner..=}tMoVf  the’<\/p>\n
intention of the legislature werehtto that <\/p>\n
payment of tax on the  questignm-:,_;;febuttab1e’
\npresumption was V:-ayaikabie “as’sAes’s\u00a7ee, then
\nwhether those goods of tax
\nor not wouldsibe  of the fact that
\n to be brought on record
\nby   be open for him to
\n handed over at exit check<\/p>\n
post or that.:vthe7′ goods: in question did move out of the<\/p>\n
 Therefore;”presumption of sale Within the State<\/p>\n
I  viwouid\ufb02noit beavaiiabie to the revenue.<\/p>\n
  the present case, the contention of the<\/p>\n
‘ ..appe11aht consistently was to the effect that along with
\nIvthe; driver of the vehicle, the owner of the goods also<\/p>\n
“travelled because the consignor and the consignee were<\/p>\n
\u00a36<\/p>\n
one and the same. Therefore, the entire formalities at
\nthe check post were looked after by the representative of<\/p>\n
the goods. Hence, the driver who normally  be<\/p>\n
illiterate would not know the details. Apparently’<\/p>\n
case, the goods had to movefrorn””‘Mar1galore __to’x <\/p>\n
Pondicherry which is outside the <\/p>\n
section 28~AA contemplatesthat the goocis  lbyl’<\/p>\n
the owner if moved __out of_.th:”e..State. dh’e–.hbasvi\u00a7to obtain
\ntransit pass. i.e.  pe1*Son in charge of<\/p>\n
the vehicle.’ ‘The uiicler sub–sec. (4) as<\/p>\n
alreajdvllllstalted it  presumption and the
\nappe1Vla1fit’-re1i’es.’uip\u00bboi*i~ order of the assessment of the
\nconsignoru “or_:lthve.v”Cor1sig.nee of the goods.<\/p>\n
  Iltxis aisollllnot disputed by the revenue that in<\/p>\n
  sent by the check–post officer<\/p>\n
pertai._nii1g*” to M \/s. Vivek Petro, investigation was made<\/p>\n
 ..wi_th regard to the accounts of M\/s. Vivek Petro and<\/p>\n
” thorough<\/p>\n
levesn intelligence wing of the revenue also made a<\/p>\n
investigation both at Mangalore and<\/p>\n
Pondicherry, so far as the business of M \/ s. Vivelsf. Petro.<\/p>\n
The material that was placed before the assessingofficer<\/p>\n
at the time of \ufb01nal order of assessrn.Aei<1t <\/p>\n
whatever goods that were imported, i.ej.l a p'rroIdulct.l_<;al'EedV ' 2 l<\/p>\n
'naptha' was in fact sent to"i4cPoncihicl1er1yV <\/p>\n
accounted at Pondicherry:.:Va:ll.'alt  even  <\/p>\n
Central Excise Depa1jtn1er:lt"'\u00abil;1-if-I5ondichlerry.~-'Flt is also
\nnoted that whatever  'payable to the
\nCentral  \u00ab%aid and these are
\nthe   aiitltiority. When once the
\nassessing  up the assessment
\nprocess  a  ::investigation into the missing of<\/p>\n
\/ or non$a'ccou.nting oi':TPs. at exit check post, so far as<\/p>\n
   ?.Vi_ve.l.s; Petrowis concerned, it was satisfied that all<\/p>\n
   lt'hVaTt were imported which were meant to be<\/p>\n
sent to ~P.o.%1chicherry did reach Pondichery and not even<\/p>\n
 a single incident where the revenue was able to<\/p>\n
it glestablish that it was sold within the State. He was<\/p>\n
 * V–justi\ufb01ed in saying that the assessee i.e. M\/s. Vivek<\/p>\n
Petro had accounted all the goods that were imported by
\nthem and nothing escaped from the tax. In that View of<\/p>\n
the matter, when once by way of rebuttal eVideieice\u00a7_g the<\/p>\n
appellant relies upon the assessment order,pertai'ni_ng__to_<\/p>\n
M\/s. Vivek Petro, in the absence of<\/p>\n
establising that the consignrIient::"in: 'not<\/p>\n
move outside the State,":revisionall  not"<\/p>\n
justified in setting aside _thlea_o'rders"ofthel appellate
\nauthority. As a Inat"icr–oi'– A.re'v_isional authority<\/p>\n
did not even\u00e9refer tfjvvlwh\ufb01l  \u00abVrehuttable evidence<\/p>\n
relieclllupoirfby    vehicle and whether the
\norderlof  as'sle_:sslin'g::'a1ithority had reached \ufb01nality or<\/p>\n
not; ..\n<\/p>\n
   the”‘ot’her hand, the learned Government<\/p>\n
   enough to bring to our notice that the<\/p>\n
‘Sn<\/p>\n
order  Zafsslessment pertaining to M \/ s. Vivek Petro was
\n ‘A the llsulbject matter of suo Inoto revision under section
\n ,,,\u00a2l’2.l;5but the revisional authority confirmed the said order<\/p>\n
xlof assessment of the assessing officer. When once the<\/p>\n
E9<\/p>\n
order of assessment of M\/s. Vivek Petro has reached
\nfinality, it would not be open to the Department to say<\/p>\n
that the presumption under sub–sec. (4) of  is<\/p>\n
still available and the same is not rebutte_ri_;\u00e9..”Iri_’<\/p>\n
the above discussion and reasoning,'”Wc.:’_arc\u00bb of the\ufb01p <\/p>\n
opinion, the appeal deserves toibe     <\/p>\n
Accordingly, the appeal- is allo\ufb01fed asifie  i’<\/p>\n
order of the revisional autho:ri.tyad3atecl”120,lV{l\u00a7.20O8. If
\nany amount has   the appellant<\/p>\n
either towaryjs taxfwor’ 7tl;e” same shall be<\/p>\n
 the date of receipt of
\na  of’-the
\n     sag-\n<\/p>\n
‘  . . . . . .. ”\n<\/p>\n
S\u00e9\/’—\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Mr Ivan S Muthu vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010 Author: Manjula Chellur K.Govindarajulu IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, EANGADORE DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER; PRESENT THE HDNBLE MRS. JUSTICE(…NLANJ_U’LA’.C’H’E'[.I3LTR_ ” ” AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTTQE SALES TAX O: 141 DE: 260:3} BETWEEN J […]<\/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-41120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMr Ivan S Muthu 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\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-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=\"Mr Ivan S Muthu 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\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-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=\"2019-03-21T18:46:33+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\\\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr Ivan S Muthu vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T18:46:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2924,\"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\\\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr Ivan S Muthu 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\":\"2019-03-21T18:46:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-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\":\"Mr Ivan S Muthu 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":"Mr Ivan S Muthu 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\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr Ivan S Muthu 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\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-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":"2019-03-21T18:46:33+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\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr Ivan S Muthu vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T18:46:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":2924,"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\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","name":"Mr Ivan S Muthu 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":"2019-03-21T18:46:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ivan-s-muthu-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":"Mr Ivan S Muthu 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\/41120","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=41120"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41120\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}