2013 (7) TMI 706 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty u/s 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - Tribunal confirmed penalty for collecting amount as contingency deposit - Held that - It is not disputed by the Revenue that the amount in question collected as contingency deposit treated as illegal collection related to the relevant assessment years herein 1985-86 and 1986-87. Taking 31st March 1986 and 31st March 1987 as the relevant date for working out the limitation, the five year period expired on 1991 and 1992. The assessment orders in these cases were passed on 30.11.1998 after giving notice to the assessee. Having regard to the patent illegality on account of absence of jurisdiction as per the proviso as it stood during the relevant assessment year - Order of Tribunal set aside - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of penalty levied under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in allowing appeals filed by the State.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of penalty under Section 22(2) of the Act
The assessee, a dealer in Airconditioners, Refrigerators, and Stabilizers, collected sums towards sales tax deposits for works contracts. The Assessing Authority viewed this collection as illegal and proposed penalty under Section 22(2) of the Act for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The provision required the penalty to be levied within five years from the year of collection. The assessee argued against the penalty, stating that there was no provision for forfeiting contingency deposits. The First Appellate Authority set aside the penalty following a precedent. However, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal overturned this decision without providing reasons, leading to the Tax Case Revisions by the assessee.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
The counsel for the assessee emphasized Section 22(2) of the Act, highlighting that the penalty was imposed beyond the five-year jurisdictional limit. The Tribunal's failure to address this legal issue rendered its decision against the law. The relevant provision stated that no penalty proceedings should commence after five years from the collection year. As the assessment orders were issued in 1998 for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87, exceeding the five-year limit, the Tribunal's decision lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, allowing the Tax Case Revisions filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the High Court found in favor of the assessee, ruling that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty beyond the jurisdictional limit of five years was erroneous. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and set aside the Tribunal's order, thereby granting relief to the assessee in the Tax Case Revisions.