9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 198 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPenalty - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in having confirming the order of the lower appellate authority by deleting the penalty is legally correct even after amendment carried out to Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959 by Tamilnadu Act 22 of 2002? Held that - In TVl. Apollo Saline Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) and Others 2001 (10) TMI 1100 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , a Hon ble Division Bench of this Court has held that The assessments for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 which were assessments made on the basis of the accounts, and not based on any other material and were not estimates, have therefore, to be regarded as assessments made under Section 12(1) to which the penal provisions of Section 12(3) are not attracted. The levy of penalty for those two assessment years is set aside. Thus, penalty levied by disallowing the claim of exemption are deleted. Revision dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Tax Case Revision against order made by Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty levied under Section 12(3)(b) of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959. Analysis: 1. The respondent, a dealer in iron and steel, was assessed for the year 2002-2003 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for wrongly classifying inter-state purchases as local purchases to claim tax exemption. The assessing officer levied tax and penalty on the respondent, which was partially modified by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-I. 2. The State appealed to the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB) against the modified order, which was dismissed. The Tax Case Revision was filed questioning the tribunal's decision on the legality of deleting the penalty based on previous decisions and the amendment to Section 12(3) of the Act by Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2002. 3. The Additional Government Pleader argued that the tribunal erred in not considering the amendment to Section 13 and relied on outdated decisions. The tribunal's failure to acknowledge the amendment and the irrelevance of the assessment type post-amendment were highlighted. 4. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer's assessment order and penalty imposition were based on discrepancies found during inspection, leading to the penalty under Section 12(3)(b). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision was influenced by Supreme Court judgments regarding penalty imposition based on best judgment assessment. 5. The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision, citing the principles from the Supreme Court cases. The Tribunal found no irregularity in the order and dismissed the State's appeal. 6. The High Court declined to accept the Additional Government Pleader's arguments, citing the precedents set by the Supreme Court and High Court. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in State of Madras Vs. S.G.Jeyaraj Nadar and sons and the Division Bench's decision in TVl. Apollo Saline Pharmaceuticals Private Limited case. 7. The Court concluded that the previous decisions were directly applicable to the present case, finding no merit in the Tax Case Revision. The revision was dismissed, and the substantial question of law was answered against the revenue.
|
