Back
S. V. BHATTI, BASANT BALAJI
Joy Alukkas India (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
Basant Balaji, J.
The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, is a trader in jewellery. The company, in the year 2013, purchased gold ornaments from various customers and transported to Kerala by an employee by Air. The gold was purchased by the branches of the petitioner at Haryana (Gurgaon) and new Delhi (Karol Bagh).
2. The Intelligence Squad No.III, Mattancherry on 29.11.2013, noticed transport of gold, scrap gold, and diamond ornaments without proper records as per Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'). The consignment originated from outside the state i.e., from Gurgaon and Karol Bagh was sent to 8 different centres, 2 in Kerala and the rest outside Kerala. The consignments addressed to the agency in Kerala and other states were not declared as mandated under the section 46(3)(e) of the Act read with Rule 66(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. Moreover, the delivery notes were tampered with overwriting and the complete address of the consignee was not furnished. The goods were detained and later released on remittance of 25% of the security amount demanded.
3. Annex.L notice under section 47(2) of the Act was issued pointing ou
Section 46(3)(e) of the Act is incorporated to put a check on import of goods to the state without disclosing in the books of accounts and later to be used in the manufacture or sale within the state....
The tribunal's findings were upheld, confirming that the absence of proper documentation for goods in possession justified the imposition of penalties under the KVAT Act.
Minor deviations in transport routes without intent to evade tax do not warrant harsh penalties; authorities should impose general penalties for trivial lapses in compliance with the Goods and Servic....
Minor discrepancies in transport documentation do not warrant penalties under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, with general penalties appropriately applied instead under Section....
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish the genuineness of documents and actual movement of goods; failure to do so justifies seizure under the IGST/CGST Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to carry an e-way bill and discrepancies in the transportation route can infer an intention to evade tax, justifying the penalt....
Under Section 15 of the Act, the value of the supply of goods would be the transaction value and a transaction value would be the price that is paid or payable for the supply of goods.Q
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
