2009 (3) TMI 915 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Tax assessment, Penalty imposition, Equal addition

Tax Assessment:
The case involves an appeal against the assessment order for the assessment year 1994-95 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the accounts of the assessee, including unreported taxable turnover related to silk cotton purchases and lack of proper accounts maintenance. The Assessing Officer rejected the accounts, resorted to best judgment, and determined the taxable turnover at Rs.1,37,777, imposing a penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner modified the assessment order, reducing the addition and deleting the penalty. The Joint Commissioner deemed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order as illegal and prejudicial to revenue, initiating a Suo Motu Revision.

Penalty Imposition:
The Joint Commissioner held that penalty under Section 12(3)(b) is warranted as the tax assessed and tax paid had a significant difference, exceeding 75%, leading to a penalty of 150% as per statutory provisions. The Joint Commissioner emphasized that penal interest under Section 24(3) cannot be equated with the penalty under Section 12(3)(b). The appeal argued that the assessee had paid tax before the assessment was completed, but the Joint Commissioner upheld the penalty imposition, stating it was in accordance with the statutory requirement.

Equal Addition:
Regarding the equal addition, the Joint Commissioner upheld the two times addition by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing that the discrepancies in stock and unreported taxable goods justified the addition. The appeal contended that the equal addition cannot be disputed. The court found no illegality in the Joint Commissioner's decision to restore the Assessing Officer's order, as the penalty imposition at 150% was justified by the significant difference between the tax assessed and tax paid, as per statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, with the court upholding the penalty imposition and equal addition based on the statutory requirements and the discrepancies found during the assessment.