SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Kar) 455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
T N Vallinayagam, V K Singhal
SUPERTRONIX
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER. (AND OTHER CASES).
Writ Petition Nos. 34206 of 1998, 33879, 30199, 31880-31881 of 1996 and 12749 of 1998 connected with 17504 of 1997, 33911 of 1996
Decided On: Decided On : 24-09-1999

Advocates Appeared:
B. P. Gandhi - Petitioners.
S. Sujatha - Respondents.

ORDER

V. K. SINGHAL, J. - By order dated June 26, 1997, the learned single Judge found that the validity of the unamended section was upheld in the case of Sree Hajee Ahmed Bava v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 328 (Kar). Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision given in the case of State of Haryana v. Santlal [1993] 91 STC 321 (SC); AIR 1993 SCW 3615 and submitted that certain questions which have not been raised and considered in the previous decisions require consideration by the division Bench and accordingly the matters were referred to the division Bench by the order of the honourable Chief Justice.

All these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment since the questions involved are common. Validity of section 28-A(2) and 28-A(4) as enacted by the Karnataka Taxation Laws (Third Amendment) Act, 1996 has been challenged as being violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301 and 304(b) of the Constitution of India and declare the same (sic) asked the learned counsel for the petitioner not to argue individual cases in respect of levy of penalty.

For the sake of convenience, facts of M/s. Kanpha Labs are taken into consideration. The petitioner is dealing in drugs and medicines. The goods were coming from Maharashtra which were intercepted on May 10, 1997. Notice was issued to the driver. The executive officer of the petitioner-firm appeared before the check-post authority and filed the objections. Since there was no seal of the entry check-post on the documents produced, penalty was levied of Rs. 54,822 under section 28-A(4) on May 12, 1997. Reply submitted was considered as evasive.

Provisions of section 28-A(2) and (4) are as under :

"Section 28-A(2) : The owner or person-in-charge of a goods vehicle or a boat shall, -

(a) carry with him a goods vehicle record, a trip sheet or a log book, as the case may be; and

(b) carry with him a bill of sale or a delivery note obtained from the prescribed authority or such other documents, containing such particulars as may be prescribed, in respect of the goods other than those mentioned in sub-clause (c) carried in the goods vehicle or boat; and

(c) carry with him in addition to a bill of sale, a delivery note obtained from such authority containing such particulars as may be prescribed, if the goods carried in the goods vehicle or boat are arecanut, cardamom, cashew, coconut, coffee, copra, edible oil including vanaspathi, iron and steel, liquor, oil seeds, pepper, rubber, timber or such other goods as may be notified by the Commissioner; and

(d) produce the documents referred to in sub-clauses (b) and (c) before any officer-in-charge of check-post or barrier or any other officer as may be empowered by the State Government in this behalf and obtain seal of such officer affixed thereon, and in respect of a bill of sale, shall give one copy thereof and in respect of a delivery note, shall give a copy marked as original, to such officer and carry and retain with him the other copy until termination of movement of the goods; and

(e) on entering the State limits, report at the first situate check-post or barrier and on leaving the State limits, report at the last situate check-post or barrier and shall give a declaration containing such particulars as may be prescribed in respect of the goods carried in the goods vehicle or boat, 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.

Section 28-A(4) : The officer-in-charge of a check-post or a barrier or any other officer not below the rank of a Commercial Tax Inspector and not higher in rank than a Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in respect of any contravention of, or non-compliance with the provisions of sub-section (2) or (3) or (3-A) or (3-B), for which sufficient cause is not furnished, levy a penalty, which, -

(a) shall not be less than one half of the amount of tax leviable and not exceeding the amount e







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top