Jairam Granite Industries vs The State of Karnataka

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—A check post officer stationed at the border of Karnataka and Maharashtra found the goods owned by the petitioner - assessee - dealer transported without being accompanied with commensurate original documents.

A xerox copy of the original document produced the next day did not convince the officer for permitting the goods to pass through. As a follow up action, the goods which had been checked on 31.03.2004, had been detained and though it appears subsequently the dealer produced the original document on 09.04.2004, the officer, nevertheless, passed an order u/s 28-A[4] of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 [for short the Act''] levying penalty at three times value of the goods as per his order dated 11.04.2004 and it appears the goods, in fact, were released in favour of the petitioner - dealer the next day.

The aggrieved dealer appealed to the appellate authority contending that when the original documents had, in fact, been produced subsequent to the detention of the goods, there is no justification for levy of penalty.

This contention did not find favour with the appellate authority. The appellate authority by its order dated 27.10.2005 [copy at Annexure-D] held that the original authority had given an opportunity and levy of penalty being justified in terms of the statutory provisions, dismissed the appeal.

The further appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 126 of 2006 also met the same fate, as the Tribunal noticed further facts such as change of ownership of the goods while in transit and thereby the present petitioner claiming its ownership, but nevertheless, found in so far as the requirement of the relevant documents accompanying the goods in transit, there being a violation in terms of the statutory provision and on examining the relevant authorities applicable to the situation to apply the law found, as a matter of fact, that there was no factual compliance of the requirements in terms of the legal provisions and therefore dismissed the appeal.

It is against these concurrent failures, the present petition by the person claiming ownership of the goods in transit.

Submission of Sri. Kamath, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a bona fide dealer; that the petitioner did not avoid any scrutiny or check at the check post; that, in fact, the xerox copy of the documents had been produced before the check post officer and even before the order is passed, the original is also placed before the check post officer and therefore there is absolutely no justification for levy of penalty on the petitioner on the premise that there was non-compliance of the requirements of law that, in fact, this Court has taken the view in several other cases that compliance can be secured even at the appellate stage and in the instant case when the petitioner had produced the original documents even before the very assessing authority, the assessing authority should have taken note of the same and should have allowed the goods without levy of penalty etc.

We have perused the order and also heard the arguments addressed before us.

All the authorities below have concurrently found from the facts that levy of penalty was justified. The requirement of law is that commensurate original documents should accompany the goods.

Submission of Sri. Kamath, learned Counsel for the petitioner that xerox copies being accompanied with the goods in transit is also sufficient or good enough compliance cannot be accepted for the reason that this is not the requirement of law. A xerox copy can never substitute the original and it was the duty of the person causing movement of goods to ensure that the original document itself is accompanied and not any other type of copies. If the dealer takes risk of non-compliance with the requirements of law, consequence in law follows.

We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the authorities below.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.