1983 (2) TMI 275 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Ignoring partial relief granted by the first appellate authority.
2. Levy of maximum penalty without finding of contumacious conduct.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ignoring partial relief granted by the first appellate authority:
The petitioner, a dealer in fertilizers and cement, appealed against the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1962-63. The total turnover was initially determined at Rs. 4,05,520, including turnover added based on seized material. The petitioner received partial relief during the appeal process, reducing the tax payable to Rs. 2,913. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner further reduced the tax by Rs. 246. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, leading to the filing of Tax Revision Cases (T.R.Cs) by the petitioner. The counsel contended that the Tribunal ignored the partial relief granted by the first appellate authority. The Court agreed with this contention and reduced the tax payable to Rs. 2,667.

2. Levy of maximum penalty without finding of contumacious conduct:
Regarding the levy of penalty, the assessing authorities imposed the maximum penalty without establishing that the petitioner's conduct was contumacious or wilful. The relevant provision at the time, Section 14(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, allowed for a penalty not exceeding one and a half times the tax amount for non-disclosure of turnover. The Court emphasized that in determining the penalty, the conduct and attitude of the assessee are crucial. Since there was no finding of wilfulness or contumaciousness on the petitioner's part, the Court deemed it appropriate to reduce the penalty to half the tax amount, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 1,333. The Court highlighted that the levy of penalty at the maximum rate is not automatic and should consider the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Tax Revision Cases (T.R.Cs) were partly allowed, with the Court reducing the tax payable and the penalty amount based on the arguments presented. No costs were awarded, and an advocate's fee was specified for each case.