M/S Angel Pipes And Tubes P Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer Enforcement-24
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner assails the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 25.01.2019 passed by the 1st respondent and the impugned order at Annexure-A1 dated 31.12.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – Appellate Authority and for other reliefs.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents and perused the material on record.
In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned order at Annexure-A1 dated 31.12.2019 in order to contend that after having referred to the various contentions urged by the petitioner and documents produced by it, the 2nd respondent – Appellate authority has proceeded to summarily dismiss the appeal, without assigning any cogent or valid reasons and without considering the documents and contentions of the
3 petitioner and this has resulted in an erroneous conclusion and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
Learned AGA for the respondents submit that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the appellate authority will indicate that after having referred to the various contentions and grounds urged by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent – appellate authority has summarily dismissed the appeal by holding as under:- “9. Keeping all these thing in view, & the provisions of Section 129(3) the case examined. From the examination it is observed that as per the provisions of Section 129(1) of the Act, any person who transport any goods in contravention of the provision of the Act, shall be liable to pay tax and penalty equal to one hundred percent of the tax and penalty payable on the value of the goods which was under transportation. Further, it is also observed that the rule 138A of KGST Rules, clearly specifies that the person in –charge of conveyance shall carry the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan as the case may be and a copy of the e-way bill. Accordingly, the person in charges should have tendered both a valid tax invoice and a valid e-way bill for having lifted and transporting the goods. In this case , it is clear that the person in-charge of the goods conveyance has not tendered any valid documents or –e-way bills for the
4 movement of goods. These are all mandatory provisions. In the case of the appellant had produced the tax invoice and & way bills before the Respondent Authority, after lapse of 36 hours. The said e-way bill were raised at 7.16 pm on 18/01/2019. Further the appellant had cancelled the same at 5.35 AM on 19.01.2019, which is after issual of MOV-2 by the Respondent Authority. When he could raise tax invoice what prevented him in raising the e-way bill as prescribed by the Law is understandable. The reasons adduced by the Appellant are not considerable. In the circumstances all the contentions made by the Appellant are hereby rejected as not sustainable in the eye of law.”
As can be seen from the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate authority, there is absolutely no discussion or consideration of the various contentions urged by the petitioner as well as the documents produced by it and on this ground alone, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent - Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the 2nd respondent - Appellate Authority
for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
5
(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A1 dated 31.12.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside; so also, the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 25.01.2019 passed by the 1st respondent is also hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent – Appellate Authority for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents etc., and the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.
(v) All rival contentions of the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. JUDGE
Srl.
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.