{"id":89811,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2014-05-02T03:00:35","modified_gmt":"2014-05-01T21:30:35","slug":"sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Deepak D Souza vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Deepak D Souza 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 29m DAY OF sEPTEMBER,VDA;2oD10\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE  , \n\n\n\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE   .\n\nSALES TAX APEEAENQ. 15\"  2,609;\nBETWEEN A A A Z\nSri. Deepak D'S0uza_---  E A\nS\/0 Sebast1fa11,I)-'SoL\u00a71za: \n\nSAC HouseJ._He\u00a71eyangadi_VPo_\u00a7\u00a7t 3  Eu\nMangalofe 5_f_74V\"i'4'--6,  E E'\n\n APPELLANT\n\n(By  ._G_  Sri. P. E. Umesh,\nM \/ s. Giobal Law Advocates]\n\n2i\\,N.mI2.D\n\n'  T'he'Addi'ciDnal C6rhmissi011er\n\u00bb of _Com'me1jC17a_1 Taxes\n\n  4Z_0he:I',>-..Yan:'ijya Terige Bhavan\n\n'-Gar1dhi11;\u00e9;gar\n\nB'a._r1ga_lOre}'56O O09  RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
 my S1′.;.:T. K. Vedamurthy, HCGP]<\/p>\n
E’ This Appeal is filed u\/s 24(1) of the KST Act<\/p>\n
Eagainst the Revision Order dated 03.11.2008 passed in
\n~”N0.ZAC–1\/MNG\/SMR–07&:07A\/07-08, 011 the file of the<\/p>\n
f”-J<\/p>\n
Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zoned,
\nBangalore, revising and setting aside the appeal order
\nand restoring the orders of assessment and penalty of
\nthe check post authority and accordingly concludi.ng_ the
\nrevision Proceedings. H  <\/p>\n
This Appeal coming on for Adrniss’ion’<\/p>\n
Manjula Chellur J., delivered the.,.following’i” <\/p>\n
J U D G 9<\/p>\n
On our direction’,_”~the Ale.arr_1ecliv, G_Vovernment’<\/p>\n
Advocate placed before usAythle”originall fiie._pe.:’\u00a7taining to
\nthe assessment of theifj\/eai* .2002~O3 of M \/ s.
\nVivek Petro co.._ Pvr,”Ltc1{; {fo1\u20acfs.hort’v:\u00abAM\/s. Vivek Petro’
\nand the iis:ip’eru:sie.d.~\u00bb.._Theillqilyestions of law raised in
\nthe abov_e-    under.\n<\/p>\n
i]l    \u00b0  the facts and
\nlc’irc1I11nstances of the case the
\n ._procee’d’ings initiated against the
\n l_VA:p{)ellant under Sections 28~AA of the
\nA ‘ -: Krarnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 are void
\n. “slab initio in View of the fact that the
\ngoods had become part of local stock of
\nthe consignor, who is also a registered<\/p>\n
dealer under the said Act, before they<\/p>\n
were transported outside the State and<\/p>\n
U’)<\/p>\n
the said Section is applicable only i._r__1<\/p>\n
case of transportation of impovrtged\u00e9f.<\/p>\n
goods by using Karnataka as a_ 5  <\/p>\n
state?\n<\/p>\n
Whether on the   <\/p>\n
circumstances. of Ithler. cas7’e,A:’ the} 3<\/p>\n
Respondent
\nit l  the
\nAppellant~–._fhat ‘t_he:j_pprovisi:on,s of Section
\n28-AA of thgrmnatakda  Act,<\/p>\n
l..95i7″_’arelA_no\u20act  the facts of<\/p>\n
ignoring  the p_..sti”on*1’i~ssion<\/p>\n
. “‘th.e pre_se11t_–.case   ‘<\/p>\n
V ” ‘   facts and<\/p>\n
‘ 4’  of the case the<\/p>\n
  right in rejecting the<\/p>\n
lcontgentioii of the Appellant that the<\/p>\n
 ..proceedings initiated against the<\/p>\n
 l.l”App.e1lant under Section 28-AA of the
\nV ‘ Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is void-<\/p>\n
. “”ab–intio in View of Explanation to the<\/p>\n
said Section according to which hirer of
\nthe goods Vehicle is presumed to be its
\nowner and not the registered owner of<\/p>\n
the vehicle ?\n<\/p>\n
IV)<\/p>\n
Whether on the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the ease
\nRespondent is right in holding
\nthe purpose of Explanation  ‘
\n28~AA of the Karna1’aka.eSa1e.s’tfi’afi  it
\n1957, consignor of  goods’ <\/p>\n
considered asthe “hirer” of thegoods”;<\/p>\n
vehicle and the”=.s’aid word_,”‘A’g’h*ire1j”‘ is
\napplicable .. to only:  ‘”transpor’i:erV-‘ izvho
\nobtains  ?Jehie1e”‘–V-jndjhire in case
\nhe does     ‘P<\/p>\n
facts and<\/p>\n
V ~   the ease the
\n ._justified in drawing a
\n= “that the goods in question
\n “s-old inside the State for the
\nV on1yr__eason that the transit pass has<\/p>\n
_g’not been surrendered at the exit check<\/p>\n
  inspite of the fact that the<\/p>\n
“tgassessing 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 \ufb01nding
\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 presen’t\\jease:are
\nappellant is a transporter enga”ged.iAn”..pth;e 97<\/p>\n
transportation of goods. In thea\u00e9inonth of <\/p>\n
consignment belonging to”~a””iComp’any”A narrie M\/st
\nVivek Petro – a regi.sft’e1jed  Karnataka Sales
\nTax Act, 1957 transpo-rtedl’eonsi\u00e9nnient of a product<\/p>\n
called ‘I’l3pth3AL\ufb02:7fI;01T1;:~.MalTga.1’0l%\u20ac”i~V.'”‘Th,% contention of the<\/p>\n
departniv-erit1was;:.;the\u00abtransit'”pass which was required to
\nbe tai<_en_ the person incharge of the<\/p>\n
vehicle at–\u00ab..theVer1try_s ehneekpost after commencement of<\/p>\n
   was'1'rot'Vhanded over at the exit cheek post.<\/p>\n
    presumption under Sub–section 4 of
\n is available to hold that the consignment
\n did rr.o_t} move out of the State but was sold within the<\/p>\n
it ' '  'S.tate.\n<\/p>\n
(3<\/p>\n
3. In the present Case, the transit pass was issued
\nby Kannur CheekPost, Kannur and the exit cheokpost<\/p>\n
was Attibele near Hosur. Admittedly, the <\/p>\n
reach the destination outside the State <\/p>\n
i.e., Pondicher . On the basis of non~’r_ec’eiw_t”o;f.transit<\/p>\n
pass (T1?) at Attibele exit: _within_ the  <\/p>\n
under the above said provision,  imposed
\ntax but also levied’   “t_l1\u00a2.”gQods transported.
\nThe contention of the:.’app_e1lant’\/ assessee was apart<\/p>\n
from the d1?_iver=there was authlorised representative of<\/p>\n
the (jonsignoor i”.fe.’,  Petro, Mangalore, who was
\nineharge ‘of the”goodsy_x’frorn the commencement of the<\/p>\n
journey   rehachedvlthe destination and he was the<\/p>\n
 ‘one. wl1o’li’A.t_ook  only the transit pass but was<\/p>\n
    the duty of handing over the same at exit<\/p>\n
oheckppost’; A Therefore, the owner of the Vehicle was not<\/p>\n
 ..lial3le’*=to pay either the tax or the penalty imposed.<\/p>\n
2 “‘._lH”os\/yever, the order dated 24.12.2003 by the Assessing<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
‘Officer goes to show that the said defence was not<\/p>\n
accepted and they proceeded to impose tax of<\/p>\n
Rs.l6O180\/M and another Rs.16,018\/– as penalt_VV-‘.–._’ This
\nwas challenged before the appellate <\/p>\n
Appeal No.232\/O3~O4.\n<\/p>\n
4. The appellate authority :_p’in..:’th”e_lpresent—..ca.S\u20ac<\/p>\n
after taking into consideration that the  onf’<\/p>\n
the return submitted by tl1_\u20ac3lli’0_\\_N’i’1\u00a7?I’ of ” the goods i.e.,
\nVivek Petro, Mangalore,.cOncludled_  there was no
\nevasion of any”  on \u00abassumption taxes
\ncannot be ‘thje_y_~li–g_ht.” assessee being able
\nto  “of goods outside the State<\/p>\n
and not”*..soEd  State. According to the<\/p>\n
 appellate Vauth’or.ity,.\u00bb the order of assessment passed<\/p>\n
 ‘ nrider’-v._V4’SeVction 12(2) of the Act by the Assistant<\/p>\n
C.ornmissio’ne’r of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore,<\/p>\n
 indilcates there was no evasion of any taxes and all the
\n  imported by M\/s Vivek Petro were the subject<\/p>\n
 matter of assessment and all the consignments which<\/p>\n
were to reach Pondieherry unit belonged to the very
\nowner M \/ s Vivek Petro but did in fact reach Pondicherry<\/p>\n
which was evident by the Very endo1*senienVtVV”‘o:f..fthe<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Central Excise, Pondi’eher1yVVt’datetdk’
\n9.9.2003. It also refers to the .I’e’A1AeaseA_ of   ‘
\nnaptha in favour of the consignor. a1so’V_1etter~s<\/p>\n
by the Deputy Con1mercia1″‘vef.I?a,*< Officer"'of?Po1ndieherry.VV<\/p>\n
The assessing authority hadtteovrne Vt"o..'cone1usiAon that all
\nthe entries effected by  vd_id'_'inoVe out of the<\/p>\n
State. Based"i\u00abpon this ":ti1e_._.appe11ate authority<\/p>\n
allowiedttfftheegappieal  the appellant, setting
\nasidg  check post officer dated<\/p>\n
ft'-reyfisional authority took up the<\/p>\n
 n1'at.tei*'oy't'way of suo~motto revision and issued a show<\/p>\n
 ea-u~t.o' the assessee calling upon him to explain<\/p>\n
the contents of the notice. The assessee appeared<\/p>\n
'before"'-the revisional authority and submitted the
\n"explanation. However, the revisional authority found<\/p>\n
"the order of the appellate authority as improper and<\/p>\n
prejudicial to the interest of the State revenue for the<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
    A      <\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
 pen’a1ty_….\u00ab’ u\/s
\nV _V::_oncerned which is
\n“iyv”vJi;1dgment of Hon. Supreme Court of<\/p>\n
The appellant is the owner of <\/p>\n
vehicle has obtained transit-._ Pass
\nN0.024l23l<\/p>\n
Attibele on or ‘before l6′..0b”:02.  On
\nenquiry t_hrough_….correspondence
\ncro of A..ttibelt_\u00a7 Checl\u00a7._0Post the cro
\nKannur ascert’ai’n,ed:” that. the — records of
\nCheck po,\u20ac~:t~.do V11o’t_ ivpassage of
\ngood.s:_’ vehicle 0.”. Kr’\\3–l9;E30949 through<\/p>\n
 \u00ab’Check:j.Post._p__an_d  transit pass was
\nV__also;_no”t’._s’t1.rre’nderedl and there by<\/p>\n
 of KST Act
\n* 195?Q.V-“‘”* 0<\/p>\n
   wrongly allowed the<\/p>\n
Appeal in so far as levy of tax and
\n28AA[4) 81 28AA[5]
\nagainst the<\/p>\n
ir1d–i’a in the case of civil Appeal No.3787<\/p>\n
 2006 M\/s K.GOPALA KRISHNA
\n AND OTHERS vs STATE or<\/p>\n
KARNATAKA with CA N0s.3788w3844– of
\n2006 dated 25.07.2007. Therefore it is
\nhereby proposed to set aside the said
\nappeal order in so far as the provisions
\nof Section 28AA (4) & [5] are concerned
\nand to remit the matter to the Check<\/p>\n
dated,  .ri4.o’6[02–!:yyi for   0’
\ntransportation of Npaptpha ; fr.o1r1_ ‘ ‘-S4’i’-f,_3l?_lV A 0. 0 f
\nKannur, but failed  0′-sturrerider.
\nTransit pass atlthe Eytit. Chec}::l’P.ost.VVVat.3<\/p>\n
Post Office for fresh consideration in
\nview of above mentioned Judgment.<\/p>\n
3. The FAA has misread the provision of
\nSection 2846] of KST Act while allowiiagtay
\nthe appeal as the said provisions rellate”-_.’}
\nto conclusion of provisional asse_s’s’m-ei1t.: ”
\norder by the inspecting authority “Which  H
\nis independent of pI’OVlSlOI’1S-..S\u20acC’tl0I1-A
\n28AA{4]. The proce’edi’ngs’..pu\/s_l”\u00a3;8(6}-I
\nand 28AA (4) are inclependent and
\npowers are Vconfirrned ” ~ the  A
\ninspecting au”-Eherity ‘-and the
\nrespectively. Oiiethe basis’=o,i? orders
\npassed u\/s 28(6_]____T::y_ the ACCT (Ins) II
\nMangalore vthe  :4 should not “have
\nlinked this wilprovisvionalfforder with the
\nquantification of.e’taXess’\u00ab..Ii’1’Ei:d\u20ac;lLu\/S 28AA
\n[4] _*made;i5y”‘Ci’O.A._?\u00bbTlierefore, on this
\ncount ‘also, the appeal} = order passed by
\n \u00ab”FAAEAI.suffers.frorn-..”illegality and liable to<\/p>\n
Ultimately the ord_e”1’s:_l’..’i’of the appellate authority were<\/p>\n
rgevise_d and “set:~_as.ide. The orders of assessment and<\/p>\n
‘  check post authority were restored.<\/p>\n
Si ‘iief\ufb01ion 28-AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act reads
\nas
\n“Transit of goods by road through the State<\/p>\n
and issue of transit pass~ (l)Where a vehicle<\/p>\n
is carrying goods taxable under this Act<\/p>\n
[a] from any place outside the
\nState and bound for any<\/p>\n
pface outside the State <\/p>\n
passes through this <\/p>\n
OI’<\/p>\n
[b} and which_ go”ods:7gan-ey_+,  <\/p>\n
importediv into? the-.’ ‘Stat:e.___ <\/p>\n
from _any Apiyace  the’;\n<\/p>\n
count.f3;~ and such’ Vrgootis\u00e9pvarep
\n . being…\u00a2ug;rie\u00bbd to any place
\nV “– .  the”  _
\nthe driver or anyotherV._pers’or1}Vin\u00a7ci1arge of such<\/p>\n
vehicle’  furnish’: the”‘n’e~cessary information<\/p>\n
a”1″1″ci–._ :’obtai11’– “a.f-trari’sit'” pass in duplicate<\/p>\n
v’conytaini’I1g”-~u,y’s1,1ch_'””—- particulars as may be<\/p>\n
pre.scribe”c3, officer–in–charge of the first<\/p>\n
—checpk  or barrier after his entry into the<\/p>\n
 getatey or ait’er’Vmovement has commenced from<\/p>\n
   State as the case may be, or from the officer<\/p>\n
A  for the purposes of sub–section (3) of<\/p>\n
Section 28A, upon interception of the goods<\/p>\n
Eryephicle after its entry into the State or after<\/p>\n
H movement has commenced as the case may be.<\/p>\n
(2]The driver or the person–ir1~\u00abcharge of the
\nvehicle shall deliver within the stipulated time a<\/p>\n
copy of the transit pass obtained undei1=.44_'”sVub\u00bb<\/p>\n
section[l] to the of\ufb01cerwin-charge <\/p>\n
checkpost or barrier before his exit  ‘V  <\/p>\n
(3) If for any reason;theilgoodsi4.carried__l_in1a<\/p>\n
goods Vehicle are, after errtryintopStat.e.'”{or’\u00a2’<\/p>\n
after commencement’-.of._mov’ement,”gas; the case’<\/p>\n
may be] not moved out._.oii”vthe.._State”within the time
\nstipulated in trainsgit owner of the
\ngoods vehicle  the officer
\nempower’:e:d”:’.in reason for such<\/p>\n
delay”  if any, thereof and<\/p>\n
‘suchiffofficer’shall-…_after due enquiry extend the<\/p>\n
time’* of ‘ Qxlflti.llb3T._:”S\u00a31’lt8.bly amending the transit<\/p>\n
_ pass: ~.\n<\/p>\n
  l?rovid’ed.____that where the goods carried by a<\/p>\n
\\i”\\<\/p>\n
 after their entry into the State, (or<\/p>\n
  rionimencement of movement, as the case<\/p>\n
 transported outside the State by any<\/p>\n
~.o’tJher vehicle or conveyance, the onus of proving
\nit  that the goods have actually moved out of the<\/p>\n
 State shall be on the owner of the vehicle who<\/p>\n
originally brought the goods into the State.<\/p>\n
(4)If the driver or any other person~in~charge of
\nthe vehicle does not comply with subsection (2), it
\nshall be presumed that the goods car1’iedvl_th:er_eby<\/p>\n
have been sold within the State by the<\/p>\n
the vehicle and shall, notwithstanding<\/p>\n
contained in sub~section””‘{5]y  section’  ‘be’<\/p>\n
assessed to tax by the o’fficer=.emp.oWered :l1″~l’.Vl:”Llf1VlS<\/p>\n
behalf in the prescribed manner.<\/p>\n
(5)If the owner of y_thev.vehicle.l(l1avin;_}j obtained
\nthe transit pals~s_..:as p_ro\u00a7v’ided”1ir1~d_er sub-section [1]
\nfails to deliver   under sub<\/p>\n
section(T9l):V,’:-.he  pay by way of<\/p>\n
zvlllpenaltyya  exceeding double the amount of<\/p>\n
 .leviabl’e”  goods transported.<\/p>\n
 of tax and the penalty levied<\/p>\n
 ;_u:nder  **** ‘Section shall be recovered in the<\/p>\n
V’ ”  –v.pi*es\u00aber’ib’ed manner.<\/p>\n
_.”l{f.7A):Where the owner of the vehicle who is<\/p>\n
2 .. ‘assessed to tax under sub–section (4), is carrying<\/p>\n
after such assessment, any goods taxable under<\/p>\n
this Act 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<\/p>\n
outside the State and is passing through’i~.cthe<\/p>\n
State, the prescribed authority may <\/p>\n
such owner an amount equivalent to ‘twovtimes the V’<\/p>\n
tax leviable on such goods\u00bb.under_VA’t}:;i’s Act as ‘<\/p>\n
security.\n<\/p>\n
(8)The prescribied”   authority    ‘being ‘<\/p>\n
satisfied that the go.od’s.__ ‘carried”–i,np the goods
\nvehicle in respect _of_  security amount
\nunder sub–sectiVQ_rvi1(7V’)   has passed<\/p>\n
throug.h’\u00ab..the Sptatef  such security<\/p>\n
[gf\ufb01he\u00e9niiprescribed “authority may by an<\/p>\n
erder V  or any part of<\/p>\n
security amo’unt.;t’oWards any amount of tax<\/p>\n
dour perialtyv payable under this section by<\/p>\n
. owner].\n<\/p>\n
 E’xp1ar1ation– In case where a vehicle<\/p>\n
ownvied by a person is hired for<\/p>\n
“transportation of goods by some other<\/p>\n
it  person, the hirer of the vehicle shall for the<\/p>\n
purposes of this section, be deemed to be the<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
owner of the vehicle). ‘<\/p>\n
6. Presumption under subsection (4) of sec. 28-
\nAA of the Act undisputedly is a rebuttable presumption.<\/p>\n
Rebuttable presumption would mean the <\/p>\n
whom the impugned order came to be  <\/p>\n
che<::k–p0st officer must be able'to sat1'_si7_v <\/p>\n
that there was no evasion of payment o1'"y_tAax\u00a7' it<\/p>\n
intention of the legislature  to be 'ttiata irrelsppeetive of V<\/p>\n
payment of tax on ?E:1"}\u00a73 gooldsliii\ufb01question, Hrebuttable
\npresumption was avvailablell ._l-lassessee, then<\/p>\n
whether thc;'seljgo'ods–. subjeetedjlto payment of tax<\/p>\n
or   View of the fact that
\nrebuttable evidVenee."ai1owed to be brought on record<\/p>\n
by the partyiliiiir"question, it would be open for him to<\/p>\n
 .establi"shllth_at  TP was handed over at exit check<\/p>\n
    goods in question did move out of the<\/p>\n
St"ate…__"Therefore, presumption of sale Within the State<\/p>\n
   ..wo_.uld"not be available to the revenue.<\/p>\n
7. In the present case, the contention of the<\/p>\n
l V’ “a\u00e9zvpellant consistently was to the effect that along with<\/p>\n
\/\/<\/p>\n
I 6<\/p>\n
the driver of the vehicle, the owner of the goods also<\/p>\n
travelled because the consignor and the consignee’ –vve.1’e<\/p>\n
one and the same. Therefore, the entire -formalities\u00bb<\/p>\n
the check post were looked after bythe 5rgeprels:e.nta’tiveof ‘<\/p>\n
the goods. Hence, the driver <\/p>\n
illiterate would not know theiidetails.  this<\/p>\n
case, the goods l’J..\u00e91Cl_a ljfrom ll\\H\/lan’ga.lore to
\nPondicherry which is (2) of
\nsection   imported by
\nthe owner   he has to obtain
\nthe person in charge of
\nthe vehiele.l  under sub–sec. (4) as<\/p>\n
already   rebuttable presumption and the<\/p>\n
– v  aplpellarit relies  the order of the assessment of the<\/p>\n
A *–co\u00abnsign4or_or.A’.th’e consignee of the goods.<\/p>\n
  also not disputed by the revenue that in<\/p>\n
vievv of’. the notice sent by the check~post of\ufb01cer<\/p>\n
pl  ‘pelrtaining to M\/s. Vivek Petro, investigation was made<\/p>\n
 “With regard to the accounts of M\/s. Vivek Petro and<\/p>\n
 a<\/p>\n
even intelligence Wing of the revenue also made a
\nthorough investigation both at l\\\/Iangalore” and<\/p>\n
Pondieherry, so far as the business of M\/ s. Vi\\rvel::”l??l_etro.<\/p>\n
The material that was placed before the  <\/p>\n
at the time of final order o_f\u00bb~\u00bbassessmen*tl;’iridileat’e_s V’<\/p>\n
whatever goods that were imported:;~.l_li.’el. <\/p>\n
‘naptha’ was in fact  Poridhieljierrjf\ufb02laridll was”<\/p>\n
accounted at Pondieherry,-“”  evlerivoertified by
\nCentral Excise Departments—,a’t;:’ It is also<\/p>\n
noted that :..V’\u00bb’illE1’_4E\u20acV\u20ac:ii   I payable to the<\/p>\n
Centr’allllEXeisVe   also paid and these are
\nthe findings of.Vthhe>ase..essi~ng authority. When once the<\/p>\n
assessinglaiitlioritv who took up the assessment<\/p>\n
 proeess ~a partlolf the investigation into the missing of<\/p>\n
  -(or’l:’:on\u00ab:aeeo3\ufb01;nting of TPs. at exit cheek post, so far as<\/p>\n
Mfs. v1vei\u00a7;’ lPetro is concerned, it was satisfied that all<\/p>\n
 the goods that were imported which were meant to be<\/p>\n
l serif to Ponehicherry did reach Pondichery and not even<\/p>\n
“‘”a single incident where the revenue was able to<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
‘7<\/p>\n
,\/<\/p>\n
establish that it was sold within the State. He was<\/p>\n
justified in saying that the assessee i.e. <\/p>\n
Petro had accounted all the goods that were.p4’ilmpoi;t:ed  <\/p>\n
them and nothing escaped from.tho._ta,x.ful  ofll<\/p>\n
the matter, When once by way <\/p>\n
appellant relies upon the alssessrnenlt order “pertaining to”<\/p>\n
M\/s. Vivek Petro, inupthe  thle”‘De’partment
\nestablising that the  did not
\nmove outsid<3..l[lh::e.  was not
\njustified    orders of the appellate
\nauthority;   revisional authority
\ndid   the rebuttable evidence<\/p>\n
reliedvupon' the owner of the vehicle and whether the<\/p>\n
'l V.  order or thegassesslinlg authority had reached finality or<\/p>\n
  not   "\n<\/p>\n
 9.,  the other hand, the learned Government<\/p>\n
 Advoca.te is fair enough to bring to our notice that the<\/p>\n
 of assessment pertaining to M \/ s. Vivek Petro was<\/p>\n
  .,_ti’1e subject matter of suo moto revision under section<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
.’\/<\/p>\n
21, but the revisional authority confirmed the said order
\nof assessment of the assessing officer. When once the<\/p>\n
order of assessment of M\/s. Vivek Petro has..dr’e.alcheci<\/p>\n
finality, it would not be open to the Departrriei1t.i’p:’to <\/p>\n
that the presumption under sub:se_c. {4} of” . <\/p>\n
still available and the same is :’notf_’_rebutte_’d._:”yIn <\/p>\n
the above discussion andv.””r.easoi’iingV,_w\u00a2of the’?<\/p>\n
opinion. the appeal deserveis—to”pvbe”-allowed;V…
\nAccordingly, the   setting aside the<\/p>\n
order of the  1.2008. If any<\/p>\n
 recoyeredlllrom the appellant either
\ntowards  “the same shall be refunded<\/p>\n
within_three..nionths from the date of receipt of a copy of<\/p>\n
 ” the order:  9′<\/p>\n
Sdg\/..\n<\/p>\n
IUDGE<\/p>\n
Sdji’…\n<\/p>\n
REESE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Deepak D Souza vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010 Author: Manjula Chellur K.Govindarajulu IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29m DAY OF sEPTEMBER,VDA;2oD10 PRESENT THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE , THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE . SALES TAX APEEAENQ. 15″ 2,609; BETWEEN A A A […]<\/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-89811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Deepak D Souza 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\/sri-deepak-d-souza-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=\"Sri Deepak D Souza 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\/sri-deepak-d-souza-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=\"2014-05-01T21:30:35+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\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Deepak D Souza vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-01T21:30:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3053,\"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\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Deepak D Souza 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\":\"2014-05-01T21:30:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-deepak-d-souza-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\":\"Sri Deepak D Souza 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":"Sri Deepak D Souza 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\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Deepak D Souza 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\/sri-deepak-d-souza-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":"2014-05-01T21:30:35+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\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Deepak D Souza vs The Additional Commissioner Of … on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-01T21:30:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":3053,"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\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010","name":"Sri Deepak D Souza 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":"2014-05-01T21:30:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-vs-the-additional-commissioner-of-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-deepak-d-souza-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":"Sri Deepak D Souza 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\/89811","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=89811"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89811\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89811"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89811"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89811"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}