1991 Supreme(Kar) 37
Karnataka High Court
PRAKASH ROADLINES PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES - Respondent
Decided On : 01-18-91
S.T.A. : 6 of 1984
E.R.INDRA KUMAR, H.L.DATTU
The state has no power to affect inter-state trade and commerce, and penalties under Section 28-A (4) should be imposed judiciously, considering the bona fides of the carrier and the purpose of carrying the goods.
Headnote:
Penalty - Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Section 28-A (2), Section 28-A (4)
Fact of the Case:
The goods vehicle belonging to the appellant-concern was detained at a sales-tax check post in Karnataka, and penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 28-A (4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The appellate authority found that the goods were moving from Delhi to Madras via Bangalore, and there was no attempt to evade tax.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the penalty was imposed solely because the driver failed to produce the prescribed documents immediately on demand, and the maximum penalty was imposed without considering the explanation offered. The court set aside the order of the commissioner and allowed the appeal.
Issues: The key issue was whether the penalty was justified under Section 28-A (4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the state has no power to affect inter-state trade and commerce and that penalties under Section 28-A (4) should be imposed judiciously, considering the bona fides of the carrier and the purpose of carrying the goods.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the commissioner and allowed the appeal.
( 1 ) THE goods vehicle belonging to the appellant-concern was coming from Delhi to Bangalore with several consignments with destination at different places out side Karnataka. At kumarapattanam of dharwad district it was detained at the sales-tax check post. The assistant commercial tax officer after examining the documents and the goods found in the vehicle initiated penalty proceedings under Section 28-a (4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and ultimately levied a penalty of Rs. 24,750/ -. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the assistant commissioner of commercial taxes. The said authority found that the g. c. note No. 62509, dated 15th september, 1979 was. Ignored by the assistant commercial tax officer in the notice issued by him and the said note, showed that 55 cases of iron springs were consigned from Delhi to Madras and not to Bangalore as noted by the check post officer. By referring to the records the appellate authority found that the said goods were ordered by a Madras party - M/s. Unique automobiles, from the Delhi seller - M/s. Sham motor stores. The relevant letters were referred by the appellate authority. Consequently, the appellate authority held that there was no attempt to evade the tax and that the goods were moving from Delhi to Madras via Bangalore. The commissioner of commercial taxes, however, issued a notice under Section 22-a of the act proposing to revise the order of the assistant commissioner of commercial taxes on the ground that the same was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and was erroneous. In the notice the commissioner stated that in the h. c. note produced by the driver of the vehicle 357 Articles were shown as destined from Delhi to Bangalore, which did not show the full name and address of the consignee with registration certificate numbers and according to the commissioner obviously it was noticed that the consignment of 55 bundles of iron springs covered by h. c. note No. 62509 were being transported without bills. Ultimately the basis of the notice was:"the stand taken by the appellate authority is considered wrong, because in respect of 55 bundles of iron spring found in excess, only h. c. note was subsequently produced and no bills were produced before the check post officer. Even the bills stated to have been produced before the appellate authority revealed that the said goods were destined from Delhi to Madras and not to Bangalore. The documents for the goods under transport should be produced at the time of checking the goods vehicle and not subsequently. "therefore, it is clear that the failure of the driver to produce the documents at the checkpost was the basis for initiating action by the commissioner. Ultimately he affirmed this stand. Before the commissioner the appellant was not heard because his authorised representative did not appear on due dates and the commissioner had not the benefit of any assistance to instruct him about the assessee's case.
( 2 ) THE entire case of the revenue heredepends upon the construction to be placed on section 28-a (2) read with Section 28-a (4) of the act. These Provisions read as follows:"28-A (2) the owner or person-in-charge of a goods vehicle or boat shall carry with him a goods vehicle record, a trip sheet or log book, as the case may be, and a bill of sale or a delivery note obtained from the prescribed authority or such other documents as may be prescribed containing such particulars as may be prescribed in respect of the goods carried in the goods vehicle or boat, as the case may be, and produce the same before any officer-in-charge of the check post or barrier or any other officer as may be empowered by the state government in this behalf. The owner or personin-charge of a goods vehicle or boat entering the state limits or leaving the state limits shall also give a declaration, containing such particulars, as may be prescribed, of the goods