Dismissed

Ms Trade Friends Represented Through Its Proprietor Kamal Kumar Singhania v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC27 Feb 2020WPC/6820/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging penalty orders imposed for transporting fireworks without a valid road permit. The court held that the expiration of the permit was not excused by a fire incident at the supplier's premises prior to the transaction.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner firm.

Ms Trade Friends Represented Through Its… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 6820 of 2016

¶2

M/s. Trade Friends, Ranchi.

¶3

…. …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Ranchi.

¶8

Commercial Taxes Officer, Investigation Bureau, Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur. …. …. Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : M/s. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : M/s. Atanu Banerjee, Sr. S.C.-III Miss Pooja Kumari, Advocate.

¶13

¶14

08/ 27.02.2020. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for

¶15

the State.

¶16

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Judgement dated 16.09.2016, passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Ranchi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), in Revision No. JR-191 of 2013, dismissing the revision filed against the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Assessing Authority, imposing penalty upon the petitioner firm, for transporting the goods without valid road permit.

¶17

The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The writ petitioner firm carries on business of fireworks and its truck was apprehended on 10.12.2012 by the Investigating Bureau Revenue, Jamshedpur Division, at Jamshedpur, while transporting crackers from Shivkashi in Tamil Nadu to the petitioner’s firm at Ranchi. The road permit that was produced by the driver of the truck had already expired on 09.10.2012. It had also been

¶18

-2-

¶19

found that even the transaction was entered into between the petitioner’s firm and the selling dealer at Shivkashi in Tamil Nadu, on 03.12.2012 where from the consignment was sent and accordingly, the road permit had already expired much prior even to date of transaction between the petitioner firm and the selling dealer.

¶20

In the aforesaid background, the Assessing Authority, vide order dated 14.12.2012 imposed the penalty to the tune of Rs.8,98,258.20 equal to three times of the tax on the value of goods, i.e., Rs.21,38,710/-. The order passed by the Assessing Authority was affirmed by the Appellate Authority in appeal, as well as by the Tribunal in revision. Aggrieved thereby the present writ application has been filed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently argued that the

¶22

impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities as well as the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the goods were being carried with a road permit but due to unforeseen circumstance that the fire had broken out in the premises of the selling dealer, the road permit had expired in the meantime, and there was no intention to evade the tax, as all the goods were duly accounted for in the books of accounts.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer, submitting that the case is fully covered by the decision of this Court in M/s. Economic Transport Organisation Ltd., Ranchi, Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (W.P.(T) No. 4090 of 2017 decided on 27.01.2020) , wherein also in the similar manner when the goods being transported was apprehended without any road permit and after apprehension of the vehicle, the road permit was generated and produced, it was held that since the goods were being carried without any valid road permit the penalty order was justified.

¶24

-3-

¶25

Learned counsel for the State submitted that in the present case also since the road permit had already expired, it shall be deemed to be a case of no road permit.

¶26

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the road permit in the present case had expired due to the unforeseen fire occurrence, that had taken place in the business premises of the selling dealer, is of no help to the petitioner. The impugned Judgement clearly shows that this aspect of the matter had also been considered by the Tribunal, which shows that fire had occurred in the premises of the selling dealer at Shivkashi on 05.09.2012, and after about three months thereafter there was transaction between the petitioner firm and the selling dealer on 03.12.2012, pursuant whereto, the crackers were being transported. As such this case is also squarely a case, in which the crackers were being transported without any valid road permit.

¶27

We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgement dated 16.09.2016, passed by the Tribunal in Revision No. JR-191 of 2013, dismissing the revision against the penalty orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.

¶28

There is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

(H.C. Mishra, J.)

¶30

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶31

D.S./B.S.

Ms Trade Friends Represented Through Its Proprietor Kamal Kumar Singhania v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Trade Friends Represented Through Its Proprietor Kamal Kumar Singhania v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushma Choudhary Vs Union Of India Through The Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax And Anr.

Ms Ramkrishna Forgings Limited Through Its Senior General Manager Finance Rahul Kumar Bagaria Vs Finance

Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Sri Martha Koteshwar Rao Vs Ms Damodar Ropeways and Infra Limited

M/S Sandeep Industries Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jitendra Nath Tripathi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Management of Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited Thr Its Mr J T Kongari Vs the General Secretary Bokaro Karamchari Panchayat and Anr.