1979 (11) TMI 226 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue revising the penalty imposed on the appellant.
- Interpretation of section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 regarding the imposition of penalty for non-disclosure of turnover.
- Analysis of the term "not wilfully disclosed" in section 12(3) and its application in the case.
- Examination of the findings of the assessing authority to determine if there was a wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover.
- Comparison of different judgments to ascertain the interpretation of the term "suppression" in relation to wilful non-disclosure.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging the order of the Board of Revenue revising the penalty imposed on the appellant by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer. The issue revolves around the interpretation of section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, concerning the levy of penalties for non-disclosure of turnover. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the penalty, citing the absence of a specific finding of wilful non-disclosure in the assessment order post an amendment to the Act. The Board of Revenue contended that the term "suppression" used by the assessing officer indicated wilful non-disclosure, justifying the penalty.

The crux of the matter lies in determining the scope of the expression "not wilfully disclosed" in section 12(3). The Court emphasized that the assessing authority need not mechanically repeat the term but must show a clear application of mind to establish wilful non-disclosure. Reference was made to precedents highlighting that the term "suppression" inherently signifies wilful non-disclosure, as per the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the term only implied concealment, reiterating that concealment also entails wilful non-disclosure.

In analyzing various judgments, the Court underscored the significance of the term "suppression" in indicating wilful non-disclosure. Precedents emphasized that the use of "suppression" in assessing turnover denotes a deliberate intent to conceal, justifying the imposition of penalties. The Court reiterated that the assessing authority's conclusion of wilful non-disclosure, even without explicitly using the term, suffices to validate the penalty under section 12(3). The consistent interpretation across judgments affirmed that "suppression" inherently implies a deliberate act of non-disclosure, aligning with the legislative intent behind the provision.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the Board of Revenue's order, emphasizing the uniformity in judicial interpretations regarding the term "suppression" and its association with wilful non-disclosure. The appeal challenging the penalty imposition was dismissed, affirming the assessing authority's decision based on the established legal principles and precedents.