Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri.Manoj Jalan S/O Ramatur Jalan on 27 April, 2010
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, L.Narayana Swamy
1 %
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 271" day 0fApri}. 2010
PRES EN'?
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTXCE D V s1ajrLE_iSIDjRAKt:rx4A¢R' X T 1:'
THE Hoi~z'BLI: MR .JUsTIcE"L' NARAYANA
Sales Tax Revision' }3fe€i.tfo;%i"f\x'év.V'2f"ef'2009 '
Cm). '_ _ , ._ » _
Sales Tax R;:uisior1APetiiior1.i\g'o, ;2 ()O9
in STRSP No.21
Between:
STATE OF m$RNAf1iU:+; ,
BY THE C0M'M1Ss1oNER.f@§" '
COMMERCEALTAXES ' _ '
VANEJYA THERIGE KArzY;:x_1,AYA '
GANDHINAGAR " V'
BANGALQRE -560 009 V PETITIONER
Smt Geetha Manon, AG-A]
SR1 MANQJ .LALAN§'.=
S/O RAlV1A'£'UR. JALAN
~ .. j SR: 'RAM SAi).AE'€
_ . BF3{}AI 'NIIEW ROAD
; 'BFZJAI , '
" ' MANGAILGRE W 575 004 RESPONDENT
{By Smt. Vam' H, Adm} 5 iiabie to pay tax in terms of sub--section (4) of Section 28- AA of the Act but also iiability to pay penaity in terrnsfoifc. subsection (5) of Section 28--AA of the Act. it it '
3. It is because the appeflate tribunai in impugned order dated 10-4-2008 has! filed by the owner of the goods .c'a-rrierddanid d the levy of tax and penalty on the preseiit revision petition by the re\?eniie.' A 2 V
4. The reason assigned trih'1,1_naiv_ forfailowing the appeal is quaiity kerosene oil while was aviiiiaxaihle Entry} of if-"art~K of second'seiriedtileuatovthe rate at which this goods '~x{ariedv"'trom time to time, starting from during the relevant point of time.
outer-.iiri:_1it the date Within which the goods should eX.i.tedV'from the border of the State was 48 hours "the tirne when the goods crossed the check~post at it Mangalore, being at about 9.30 am on the 251" 7
prevails in law, when a. goods subjected to a single point levy of sales tax within the state is sold again within the state for the second time, as an ir3tra~State sale, event, the tax liability is nil, as it will be a T' within the state and. therefore, either levy the tax or penalty on, the owtier v°goodisA."' Career and if the goods is deerfiedto hVave"'beeri;: sold- within the state of Karnatal<'a._ in it-he resvoohdent, by the owner of the gOO(;lV_S_:'C.ElI i--'t'=. have to be presumed that pass, it is not the owner o'i:ke1'osene oil within the state such a presumption is invoked, the liable to tax, for the reason
-tlie'is'ale"iby"*t,he §tl}n'e:'~'or the goods career of the goods r1ar'riel:y__el«:'vet'o:se_r1'eVAVoilijwithin the state of Karnataka, will be second sale will be exempt in terms of the Govt ""l.':':i\lotii"lr;atiori so FD 54 est 2002 (4) dated so-3-2002 and ._ as isluoh»-eanrxot attract any tax liability whatsoever, on the f..):1"€3vSLl}"l:'1]I)ti()1'1 of there being a local sale and therefore was &/ 8 not required to be brought to tax under Section 28--AA of the Act. For such purpose, the tribunal had foliowedpthleit judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in STATE 01:' PUNJAB vs MULAKH RAJ NAN!) 1_f STC 101].
5. it is on the basis of such _reasoning and further direction that a Copy of be furnished by the AVR Overseas Pvt Ltd., I\/l_angaiore.._'-todiflltiatelaetion against the said oo:<1signoVrl._ivar1:é;l'i'thatthere liability on the owner of the there cannot be any penalty and inlllthisvvview of matter, allowed the appeal
6. "*d'nder'VV'~"these circumstances, the present revision lpetitilonv by the statemrevenue. V"-V'_'}'iiis"A_ereVision petition had been admitted to examine 'ialltizeuvfolloxving questions of law, as raised in the 'm.en'1orandum of revision petition:
QUESTIONS OF LAW {iv 2 .Wh€.th.'--'.".~. icon the elects stand 2 in circumstances of the case, can it be held that t:he order dated 10.4.2008 passed by'. the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in " r 2285/ 2004 is correct and in accorda1n_cey=._ with law'? 0'
(b) Whether on the facts in " '1 circumstances of the case, canit be held = that the Appellate T:*ibiinal was right' law in holding that sincethe res'ponde'nt's, goods vehicle was not____hired._»by ari;:one,v:?
the question of'_fP:tstening «liability on the hirer of the goocis~'veh.i§elie' ;by"~irivol£ing the legal fiction cont.'ai~nea","'inf explan.ation to Section ZSAA does"not in'. the instant (C) Vifhether _ facts and in circtL_I?*I.3tarices. of the case, can it be held
-that " the -Appellat:e Tribunal erred in rrtisint.'erpreVting. t:he explanation to s.28wAA tjf th'e_KST Act?
id} the facts and circumstances A of =fjhe5' case can it be held that the fiidgnient of the Tribunal will hold good in .. view of the 12. That the order of the .A Tribunal is liable to be set aside in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sri 0 Gopalakrishna Shetty vs. State of Karnataka 82. anr wherein the order of the High Court which set aside the tax and penalty under s.28AA (4) and (5) of the 10 Act was set aside and matter remanded to the Check post officer to dispose ojfthe matter in view of the explanation to section 28AA? ' and the following additional question of law perlrl_ittedl.: it be raised as per our order dated 28- lO¥2OU9;_ Whether on the faets and"lin'---pircarrvastancesl the case, can it be held that the Appellate'; Tribunal was right in law in holding th'ai.__the9 respondent was a see.ond_' dea~le:'V in superior kerosene and hence e"ritlitlecti}eX'etr'ilption from 13CLyfnent'0ftax? ' 1
8. The revisioni_";5e§jitione'r--Iieverlllleolhas--contended that the order ;5ass_ed tribikvnal -is not only illegal, but virtually wlthknltl V that the tribunal has grossly s'alrlrl.i:sving:that the tax liability should be fastened _orl.:_thefonsignor M/S AVR Overseas Pvt Ltd.. and therefore' not be assessed in the hands of the omfler oflllthel' goods Vehicle; that the riotifieation dated 30- I'€f€I'€I1C€ to Section 8--B of the Act, would absolve the respondent from any liability towards l""'l.playment of tax under the Act; that the tribunal has E/, lllll I4 11 Committed an error in purporting to apply and follow the decisions of the Supreme Court in the ease of M/S TRANSPORT COMPANY vs STATE OF UP [62 src and STATE 05* PUNJAB vs MULAKH ,4' [50 STC 101] to be one attractedigto present case; that the tribunal ';3:1.1Q}.11dV:1'1'C'1¥\}e fo1i'o{v.ed.,.Var1_d V applied the judgment of the Suprerr1'e.:Cot1rt case of SR1' GOPALAKRISHNA iis] STATE OF KARNATAKA ((2005:; _13 vs? j365.._rsC)j'. interpreting the Very proVisi_on'-S" gs-..A/set' the Act, wherein the Supreme order of the high court court had set aside the tax and pen_aityruurrder.7stib-seotions (4) and (5) of Section i.respeetit*e1y and remanded the matter to then dVoffi1z:er; that the order passed by the ibu'riai'i.s iiiegal and prejudicial to the interests of :St..ate "therefore should be set aside and the order "L3y" the Commercial Tax Officer, Saies Tax Check- 12 post, Mukka, Mangalore. and affirmed in the first appeal should be restored.
9. Appearing on behalf of the appellant.--reve_rj1'iL1'el,--.';_ll.7l:s5 Geetha l\/Ienon, learned Additional GoVernme_nt-- would very vehemently urge that the at misunderstood and rnisappliedvthet prineipl.es terms of Section 28--AA ofsthe has failed to notice the liability"--ilrlte'rrn¥s' section [4] of Section .2,8w~AA of of the vehicle transportlhg transporter failing" to within the Stipulawd time and thereby that the goods in g.'.1('s"vStlOVI.1 of the border of the State to n1a_l<;e_"the»sa1eu._transaction to be an inter--state sale Vtransaotion transporter admittedly having failed Vlg_ir1'.Vnot @1113? 'not surrendering the transit pass at the ;Sc":l:.1Aeek post. within the stipulated time, but also to establish by Cogent material that the very goods. b""A._in'.'Vfact, has been moved out of the state and in such V, éz$8?"\;3§.§ 13 circumstance, the driver or the person in charge of the vehicle having failed to Compiy with the mandatory*._V' requirement of sub-sect1'on (2) of Section 28«~AA of ;__ it the consequences as per subsections (4) .'aI1dd:'_{5}'~~::ofV Section 28--AA of the Act inevitabiy foiiovv'e..:anrd_1 was no other question that wasv'reqi1ired- be by the tribunai and that the Hbhave dismissed the appeai and that the order of the the order passed by the T ax Check-
post, by the first appeiiate a1iti1Vority,' by aiiowing this revision V y A V d Vani H, iearned counsel for the A11evspondeiit¥ovimer of the vehicle in question, has T' our at_t'ent.i~oAn to the provisions of subsection (1) of d Ve28~¥AA:.of the Act and aiso the provisions of Rule Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 [for short, Ruies], governing the procedure to be foiiowed by a 14 person in charge of 21 goods vehicle carrying goods which are in transit and passing through the state of K31'.f1atE'il{'(:t as part of the inter-state transaction, pa1'ticniariy~..to_» K provisions of sub--ruie (2) of Rule 231*", \xrhici1__Vl:i'esds"~ T' under:
234?'. The transit of goodsby thro:;igii' 1 l the State and issue of transit pass:-~ _ {1} xxx (2) The o[F:cer--in5elzarge V = _(Ljf l the." entry checkpost or":3_u£r--h o_[jice.r' emjmugerefci shall, after exan1inira'yl__-_'_the _ ciocurnent and after making siich_.en.qu'iries"c7is_ hevigieems necessary issue Vthe"'d_apii<:atef<:ind triplicate copies of lF'i€iVj»Cippili1COliO[i; retaining the original fiiniseif. The fm's.s"s,hail"specyy the checkposi or the7ba'rrier .V{l'"iC?.i:l1'?1'IV'i*Q_]All'a".I7~" referrecrl to as the exit cl1ec'I<:post}"of the,S;tai'e to be crossed by i'l1€',i}€l'liCl€l if any' established. the route to be A _lolié-guqeil and "ti-1ev__ci_a.te and time upto which it ll " .should'i'beVl'so crossed.
to siibniiii rion--produ.ction of transit pass in itself oarir1o"t, conclude the issue against the owner in the that if the t.ransporter had been provided o'niy'i§rit:h a delivery note and not 21 transit pass, there is no iiray of the transporter producing transit pass at the 15 exit check post. and therefore, the failure. attracting tax liability and penalty in terms of subsections {4} and (5}..of Section 28~AA did not arise: that the presumption;that'-.x the consignee is a bogus person or a .
on the part of the authorities was I_1ot._at even as based on some intelligence repoiftl of the vehicle having not evenlheen the information which the authoriti'es---liadl"gathhereci, be from its intelligence that the consignee is a non-.exi~ster_§t person' iwlfa-s_ totally against the principles lverify these aspects, the matter may'~l1aveVVtoljgo 'lo.ackV~'to the authorities.
11. Learried co11_r1se1..'for'v_the.'respondent would also draw ;biii..tatté.fi'tien to m¢'iater dated 2s--s--2oos originating from either addressed to the Commercial Tax K"V'Officer.'--.__V Chec:k~post, Mukka, Mangalore, " i."ihdieating that the very goods career carrying kerosene oil *.rear%hed its destination and had written to them that .?6:3w2003, the carrier had unloaded the goods, which 16 in effect would substantiate that the goods had not been locaily sold and therefore it is not merely a transaetionV"»ol'._V_ inter--state sale but also and a genuine one, pp'. consignee being a real person, who actugijy '4 the goods and in this state of facts, it Commercial Tax Officer, Sales Mangalore either levying or the provisions of Section 28~AA'.V:ohf.tl1ce the order passed by 'V tétrarrant any interference ed.
12. It is the transporter having been pfOVld€dVVV'V'*.?1ftl'l note, there was no need on~ the V"'tra.nsporter to apply and obtain a the orders of the authorities not about the production of delivery note pt;her hand there being a presumption that it "beenA"p_«delivered to the check post officer and with the version that transit pass could not be surrendered Vlti«..:i"byV'the transporter, as, according to the transporter, the 17 transit pass. even if it had been issued. had been collected by a representative of the consignor who was accompanying the goods. levying sales tax on transporter under sub-section [4] of Section Act and further levy of penalty under subwsection it totally unwarranted and is illegal that the tribunal has rightly inte_i'fere'dA_:vlwith and urges for dismissal of the 1'evisiioj'1 petitionillii '
13. Ms Vani also draws 0'uéj"attef1t;ion' *tl_o,the provisions of subsection (4) of-and submits that the preslumptirjnpp4"iI14'<this' proviso does not arise against theu", :'espond'e1it{o~"wne1* of goods Career, p.g,1jticul~ai;ly 'tor the owner of the Vehicle to tax and ;§'e':1a1ty'«~c)n.1§r for the reason of n0n--p1~oduction of t1*ans°1't.pass that for this reason also, the ifevision pe,titi_on is to be dismissed. Llearxield Counsel for the responclent. would also that the reasoning of the tribunal to allow the 18 appeai before it by foilowing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of MULAKH RAJ NAND LAL [supra] apt, justified and for this reason also the revision should be dismissed.
15. We have perused the order sought aiso the orders passed by the first:
the original authority and aiso produced by the learned our attention to the by the learned AGA, and the iearned counsel respondent.
16. In so far concerned, they are not in djiispuete isxthe'"Ca*se'Vof the respondent that he was traris'p'or_ti1'ig_"'«iteroseige oi}, which had been imported by the New Mangalore Port and the "--d«d..1'i:11_;jo.rted oivlthhad been loaded into the tanker of the had passed through the sates tax check~post, Mangaiore, carrying the oil intended to be @/M, 19 delivered to the consignee M/s Jai Bherunath 'l'raders_,"
Rakholi. Silvassa. The vehicle carrying 12 superior quality kerosene oil valued at Rs :"
arrive at t.he sales tax check--post, Mui(i{a;. 25-6-2003 and vehicle bearing 4060 carrying this oil was requiredjtep golhvouthlo-fl border by or before 9.20 pni on and fithe't1*"a§nsit pass was required to be sales tax check post at the that by 27-6-2003 t.he surrendered and the Cornrnerciaigy H Checkwpost, at Nippani, should have passed through, paddreséseelaalhetter his counterpart at Mukka, a"s:pe1*.his dated 27-6-2008 and on 12-8- Tax Officer. Sales Tax Check--post, Mukka,l""1\/Eaijiglalore issued a show cause notice to the therein proposing action under Section 28-AA th-ed" Act and eliciting an explanation from the ' respolndent. The respondent filed an application seeking V 20 for ten days' time for obtaining and submitting the confirmation letter from the consignee, to prove that the goods has actually been delivered to the consignee. On 28-8-2003, the respondent fileda confirrnation letter froin_ the consignee also indicating that the consignee taxed. On 28-10-2003. the Conirnercial ' Sales Tax Check~post, Mukka, respondent to produce a certifiiatpg the/, authorities at Silvassa to indicatelvlvthat had duly accounted for the oil worth Rs there was an inspection and it was noticed that the not its returns till 541-2003
-3 thereafter indicated that there was-no;~ p'er,s'on carrying any transactions in superior "llkcrosene.. oiVlr"ai..:""the address and no name board was the place. The Commercial Tax Officer. Sdales'_;l'ax"lCheek~post, Mukka. l\/Eangalore, thereafterjhas T endorsement to the respondent to the effect that a/"
21
the confirmation letter filed by the respondent about the goods having been deiivered at the consignees place and the consignee having received it, is not an accept_ah_l:§l':".,,,V piece of evidelsce and as a folIow~up action, i"
there was no person by the name of consignee business at the address furnished by the if was thereafter, the Corrirriercialflf Officer; Check--post, l\/Iukka, Mangalore 152-4- 2004 levying tax and
17. In this state is obvious that there is failure of of sub--section (2) of Section 28'AAVVV.O'f.'theVkLA¢£A'%:y"'fihe transporter. Section 28- __Tan_Vadd'i"i:ion___to the parent Act in terms of Act Zltof intro_duced with effect from l--~5l~«}_988, and l 'i"--...V.Which'Ah'as seer; further amendments, which reads as .._f.11nder:
Transit of goods by road through _ "'..the'State and issue of transit pass :--
l V' 1) Where CI vehicle is carrying goods taxable under this Act.
M 22 {a} from any place outside the State and bound for any place outside the through " A State and passes State; or {b} and which goods are~importe'd into :1 'y S the State from any place ,(..1utside"the--. ' country and such goodsigire bei_ng._ _ " carried to any.7pl_.ace outside ,*the,__ State, the driver or any"atherper-son~Vir1¢charge"of"V such vehicle shallffurnisgh» theflnecessary information and ob~tain'=a' :transiltup"ass in duplicate containing :fsuch"»_paJ*!_iculars as may be "py_rescribecl,--.V~jro«ni" jthe_ cfi]'icer»~in- charge ifthe che_cls:p.0sty or barrier after liis"'_,.enti~*y 'injta the State or after rnav,eriient"13";.as c_o'rnr'1:e"ncedv from the State as the I;case":,4may*«..,be, or from the officer empouwerect-.,,j'ar 'purposes of sub section '{3} 'Section 28-A, upon interception. ofythelfigzoods vehicle after its 5 ' entry into the State or after movement has comrV7rience'dt.,(:t_$, the case may be.
The d.riL'er or the person-in-charge of the __ ve'liicie'.t'shall deliver within the stipulated ' tirnef'j_a.5copy of the transit pass obtained uintl-.es" subsection (1) to the officer-in~ ~~charge at the last checkpost or barrier before his exit from the State.
If for any reason, the goods carried in a goods vehicle are, after entry into the State, or after commencement of movement, as the case may be not moved {4} (5) h 23 out of the State within the time stipulated in the transit pass, the owner of the goods vehicle shatl furnish to the Officer _ _ empowered in this behalf the reasons ' such detay and other particulars, if any, thereof and such officer shall after.__due in enquiry extend the timev--"'of--.exi'st .V4b'y]' V suitably amending the transit pass: ' Provided that where the._goods.Vhcarrzledlby . a vehicle are, after th--eir~.,entry~._intoathe-1'V' in Of the;*'"cast3 "yrnay corrtrr1encerrzer*1t State, or movement, K transported outside' 'the vS'ta'te"'~by any other vehicle or conveyance,__._tthe'aonus of proving that the "-groodse '=__hav_e '.."t';K,"t1J.C[u§.j rnoved;~out:,V>of the :;St:ate«..s'h..allv on the owner Qf'A;jVlV_;.;51ei :.vehicl¢.. ilwhoalllllorrginally brottg ht.:-the' g'oods'--ftnto the State. after rson--in~charge of the .vehicle idote_s"not' comply with sub-- section (2)V,"it'shall*be presumed that the goolds carried. "thereby have been sold 5* -within 7'State" by the owner of the vehicle shall, Va notwithstanding ariyihhing contained in subsection (5) of Section'._5, be assessed to tax by the cfr"tcer.A'.i'e.rr1powered in this behalf in the prescribed manner.
~ the owner of the vehicle having obtained the transit pass as provided under sub--section (1) fails to deliver the
-- same as provided under subsection (2), he shall be liable to pay by way of penalty a sum, not exceeding double the 25 or any other similar agency, both the persons shall for the purposes of this Section. be p deemed to be the owner of the vehicle, and shall _ V be jointiy and severally liabie to pay V' amount of tax or penaity payable.
This is a piece of legislation added the purpose of checking diversionof are goods either in transit in the of"
or goods imported in the outside the State.
18. This is a::' purely to prevent leakage of Ijei/eridev:b)t;;dii3'fi.1ehs'*p1itt'i'1";Vgiiorth false claims of interstate tax. even when goods were soldpplocaldldfifb S S » taxing statutes, Section 28--AA of the Act feqdniresvat"strict"construction, the purpose and object :t=.._ofintrodticing this Section should be borne in mind while inte1"pret«i.eng" and understanding these statutory' ' -V: provisgions.
26
20. Subsection [2] of Section 28--AA of the Act mandates the driver or the person in charge of the to deliver the transit pass obtained in terms ii". section (1) at the time of goods cheek post. Subsection (3) while ieeway in favour of the transportear:V:;"~.wi1o", cogent and convincing reason"for'.='t'he*. the goods, can, on an of time for moving out the;goo.d.s arid su-.r'rei1der_"t.he :f=ira1"1sit pass.
21. If out of the state are, any out for any reason using another Vii/iehieledji onus of proving that such Vjeiiivele 'Very___goods had moved out of the state earriediri» _a<..differe1it vehicle is clearly cast on the owner thehvehicle. Voriginaliy brought the goods into the
-fijistate and aifiaiiure will automatieaily rope in the owner of which originally brought the goods into the sta'te,_a§for meeting the liabilities incurred in terms of sub» "seetions (4) and (5) of Section 28~AA of the Act. 27
22. Even after a thorough examination of the records.__» and a detailed consideration of submissions Bar, we have not found any material to versions of the respondentwowner of the goods have been actually delVi\.'e'red':4a.tithe placgeloif consignee or to say that the very moved out of the state and Ci:ffeF:A€Vf1'fzVV\?Fét1j:Cie. it
23. No material and the lower siibstantiate a justificationtor lt.oVVst1rrender .the transit pass, but after extension of time for surrendering pass, it has got to be norasnrrender inevitably attracts the snh=:r'sect1ons (4) and (5) of Section 28~AA of the Act. ' Ailimsy excuse on the part of the respondent-- transnorter that a representative of the consignee/ voonsignor had collected the transit pass and that can be a// 28 either verified or collected from the said representative, neither here nor there and at any rate does not the owner of the goods vehicle from the 'V' Section 28--AA of the Act, particularly su'b~»secti--onsv'4 (5).
2.5. T he liability in terms of on the owner of the goods and the flawed reasorxs :'--a_nd §:\'~l.V,1ribuna1 in concluding that. as one liable for the owner cannot be on the premise that the goods is the consignor to the aTndVV_therefore_¢amounts to a second sale by the transp»orte_r;'v..eV*e1i;i'f--._it is sold within the state, is a non-
5.....existent 's'ituat'i'o"n.5; which does not follow in law nor has
-. ffibeen made out on facts.
28]., is nothing but a fertiie piece of imagination on ' of the learned members of the tribunal, which is @/K 29 nothing short of a perverted way of dealing with the matter and we strongly deprecate the members tribunal resorting to such dubious ways to respondent from an inevitable statutorf*»::.r)nset1tien'ce»i
27. The reliance placed by the decisions of the Supreme totally inappropriate judgnients the facts of the present case. to be decided only onithe'j.app_licatj.on'«.VAof:'..th'gifprovisions of Section 28-AA facts, this was a situation 0f3g()0CiS.beifig4i11transit and transit pass having not been surVre_nddere'd_ "the exit point and therefore atto,racting;.tlie consequences in terms of sub--secti0ns (4) and ES)"ofVSec"tionA'28_~AA of the Act. Tlieitdordercijpassed by the Comrnerciai Tax Officer, Tait Checl«:~posi:, Mukka, Mangaiore, levying tax and
5._'_""in3posAing"~«ipenalty, and the order passed by the first V" 'V.Viy"a_p'[.jeilate authority, upholding the same. are perfectly V 30 valid and justified on facts and on law and there was absolutely no reason for the tribunal to have interfered with these well considered orders. The reasoning given by the tribunal to set aside sueh orders and to aillo\;3!~.yi_'h.iel~.._ appeal is rather perverse on non--e>~:istent faetua.l:.--p(>si'ti'o'ir1_f and on untenable legal position, _and_ the'refo:r'e,lhthey revision petition has to be inevitably allov».}_eicl';V
29. In the result, STRP 21 of all'ovve'd,AlansIvveri1t1'g the questions of law framed" in fe.v'on:r--o'f-»_t_he revenue and against the respondent--asses_see.=.7 fI"l1_e'o'1icler passed by the tribunal set}:-siltlep'and. the order passed by the Commercial 'l"';;2xl Oi'i"it:erg Tax Checkmpost, Mukka, vVMa_ng._;alV_oi':e,v_affir'meti--~.b_y__'tl1e first appellate authority, is restoiietl . V size? No or 2009.-
"i;i._t.hiVs' revision peizitiori, except. for the 'fact. that the vehile-lelinvolved and the qnantiy and value of the goods iIr.anlsport.ed. all oi:l'3ez' facts and eireu111st.anees a'r=