9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 872 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxReversal of the claim of Input Tax Credit - penalty under Sections 27(4)(i) and 27(3)(a) - Held that - Taking into consideration that the respondent while issuing the notices proposed to levy penalty only at 50%, but, in the impugned orders, the respondent has levied penalty at 150%, I am of the view that these are fit cases, where the impugned orders can be set aside and the matters can be remitted back to the respondent to decide the same afresh - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Challenging impugned orders of respondent in TIN Nos. 33563863051/2011-2012 and 2012-13 dated 21.04.2014, regarding reversal of Input Tax Credit and imposition of penalty under TNVAT Act. Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash the revision notices issued by the respondent proposing to reverse the claim of Input Tax Credit under Section 19(14) of the TNVAT Act and to levy a penalty under Sections 27(4)(i) and 27(3)(a) of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner objected to the proposed penalty and argued that the respondent confirmed the proposal without addressing the objections. The impugned orders issued by the respondent on 21.04.2014 levied a penalty of 150%, while the revision notices proposed a penalty of 50%. This discrepancy led to the petitioner filing Writ Petitions challenging the legality of the orders. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent's decision to increase the penalty from 50% to 150% in the impugned orders was illegal. On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader for the respondent acknowledged the discrepancy in the penalty amount proposed in the notices versus the penalty imposed in the orders. After hearing both sides, the court decided to take up the main Writ Petition for final disposal at the admission stage. The court noted the discrepancy in the penalty amount proposed and imposed by the respondent and concluded that the impugned orders should be set aside. The matters were remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file objections upon receipt of the order, and the respondent was directed to provide a hearing opportunity before passing fresh orders in accordance with the law. The court allowed the Writ Petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions without costs.
|
