IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 191 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.396/2006 of S.T.A.T., ADDL.BENCH-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER ------------------------------------ M/S. S.M.L.MOTORS, TOLL JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.M.K.SUBHAKARAN SRI.P.P.VARUGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.9.2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S.T. Rev. No. 191 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. This Revision is filed against the order of the Tribunal confirming penalty levied under Section 29A(4) of the KGST Act for transport of goods without being accompanied by proper documents. Petitioner transported vehicle by road from their Depot at Trichur to the Depot at Kochi without being accompanied by any proper document prescribed under the KGST Act and Rules and consequently the vehicle was seized and released on furnishing security. Even though petitioner contended that another vehicle which was also transported simultaneously by road had carried the Delivery Note issued for this vehicle, strangely copy of the same was not produced before any of the authorities, including the Tribunal. Even though petitioner claims inter-State purchase of the vehicles transported, the purchase bill produced is common bill for several vehicles. It is not known whether chassis numbers of the vehicles are mentioned in the purchase bill so 2 that it is possible to identify vehicles covered by invoice. Above all petitioner has not chosen to produce sale bill for the sale of the vehicle which could have been done at least by the time the enquiry was taken up. In any case by the time the appeal was taken up before the Tribunal, the petitioner would have sold the vehicle and the documents could have been produced. Since the vehicle is an item which is subject to registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, without a proper sale bill registration will not be made. Since penalty is levied basically for want of documents, we feel petitioner can be granted one more opportunity to establish with documentary evidence about the purchase and sale of the very same vehicle with chassis number for the Intelligence Officer to reconsider penalty. If petitioner produces documents within six weeks from now, there will be direction to the Intelligence Officer to reconsider penalty and pass fresh orders after considering the documents produced by the petitioner. If documents are produced, the Intelligence Officer is free to modify the order confirmed by Tribunal. On the other hand, if no documents are produced, and if documents produced are not acceptable, the Intelligence Officer will be free to 3 reconfirm the penalty. S.T. Revision is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 4