1995 (4) TMI 275 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under the Central Sales Tax Act and Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act for delay in filing monthly returns.
2. Discrepancy in turnover determination under the CST Act compared to the turnover submitted by the assessee.
3. Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act.
4. Appeal by the State against the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty.

Analysis:
1. The State petitioned against the penalty imposed on the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act and Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act for delays in filing monthly returns. The assessing officer levied a penalty for the assessment year 1980-81. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter to calculate the delay accurately. The State appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that delays should be computed as full months, leading to an under levy of penalty under the TNGST Act.

2. The assessee contended that the delays were negligible, and returns were filed within the month due, except for May 1980, July 1980 to October 1980, December 1980, January 1981, and March 1981. The turnover under the CST Act was lower than submitted. The Tribunal found the delays minimal and accepted the reasons provided by the assessee, leading to the cancellation of the penalty under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act.

3. The State, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, argued that the penalty under the TNGST Act was mandatory and automatic, criticizing the Tribunal's decision. The State contended that the Tribunal should have confirmed the penalties under both Acts and not excused the delays. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the scope of section 12(5)(ii) of the TNGST Act, according to the State.

4. The High Court dismissed the State's revision petition after hearing the Additional Government Pleader. The Court found the delays in filing returns negligible and beyond the assessee's control, as the regional manager's absence caused the delays. Citing previous cases with similar reasons, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty, concluding that interference was unwarranted. The revision was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.