1995 (2) TMI 372 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty levied under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in the assessment years 1975-76 and 1978-79.

Analysis:
The judgment of the Madras High Court, delivered by Justices Thanikkachalam K.A. and Jayarama Chouta, dealt with two revisions challenging the order cancelling penalties levied under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In the assessment year 1975-76, a penalty of Rs. 1,390 was imposed for illegal tax collection, while in 1978-79, a penalty of Rs. 23,175 was levied. The assessee argued that the excessive tax collected was due to confusion regarding the tax rate, and they had refunded the excess amount to customers or deposited it with the government. The Tribunal had deleted the penalties in both years. The department contended that the tax was collected illegally, and penalties were warranted. The Court considered whether the penalties were justified under section 22(2) of the Act.

The Court noted that the assessee had indeed collected excessive tax during the relevant years but had refunded the excess to customers or deposited it with the government. This indicated that the assessee did not retain the excess tax collected. Citing a previous decision, the Court highlighted that penalties are applicable when there is no bona fide belief in collecting excess tax. In this case, since the excess tax was returned to customers or deposited with the government, the Court found that penalties were not warranted under section 22(2) of the Act. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalties based on the assessee's actions of refunding excess tax to customers and depositing it where customers were not found.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the revisions, upholding the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalties. No costs were awarded in the matter. The Court found that the assessee's actions of refunding excess tax to customers and depositing it with the government where necessary were sufficient to negate the imposition of penalties under section 22(2) of the Act.