9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1157 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSeeking quash of respondent s proceeding dated 20.02.2015 - Demand of tax @14.5% and levy of penalty in terms of section 27 of the Act 2006 - Respondent contended that petitioner collected the tax amount but have not paid the same to the department - Held that - there is no mentioning about the non-payment of tax amount collected by the petitioner in the impugned orders. Hence the said contention cannot be accepted. The impugned orders dated February 20 2015 are very clear that the turnover is less than 10 lakhs. Therefore the petitioner has the benefit of section 3 of the Act 2006. So the proceedings of the respondent dated February 20 2015 are quashed. - Decided in favour of petitioner
Issues:
Challenge to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for proposing tax and penalty on turnover less than specified amount. Analysis: The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking to quash the respondent's proceedings dated February 20, 2015, under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Act mandates tax payment by dealers meeting specific turnover criteria. The petitioner's turnover was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, but tax at 14.5% and penalty were proposed on a turnover less than Rs. 8 lakhs, contrary to Section 3. The court found the tax and penalty imposition incorrect due to the petitioner's turnover falling below the specified threshold. The Additional Government Pleader argued that the petitioner might have collected tax but not remitted it, justifying the tax and penalty. However, the court noted that the impugned orders did not mention non-payment of collected tax. As per Section 3 of the Act, since the turnover was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, the petitioner was entitled to relief. The court emphasized that if any tax collected by the petitioner remained unpaid, the Department could take appropriate legal action. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the respondent's proceedings were quashed, with a cautionary note for potential further actions by the Department if tax amounts were indeed collected but not remitted.
|
