9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 131 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of penalty u/s 27 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - assessment order was already passed before, without imposing penalty - HELD THAT - A mere reading of the judgment in The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Vs. V.S.R.Ramaswami Chettiar and Bros 1975 (8) TMI 114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT would make it clear that no penalty proceedings can be initiated independently in terms of provisions of Section 16 (2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - In the present case on hand, the penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 27 (3) of the TNVAT Act and the provisions of Section 27 (3) of the TNVAT Act and Section 16(2) of the TNGST Act are similar. A reading of the provisions of Section 27 (3) of the TNVAT Act and Section 16(2) of the TNGST Act would make it very clear that unless there is a definite finding as to the wilful non-disclosure of taxable turnover, the assessing officer will have no jurisdiction to impose the penalty. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that once the Assessment Order is passed, without imposing penalty, subsequently the 1st Respondent cannot change his view and initiate the fresh penalty proceedings. This Court is inclined to quash the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 15.03.2023 - the impugned orders passed by the 1st Respondent are quashed - Petition allowed.
Issues:
The judgment addresses the issue of imposition of penalty under Section 27 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the legality of initiating independent penalty proceedings after passing assessment orders. Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Section 27 (3) of TNVAT Act The Petitioner challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 27 (3) of the TNVAT Act by the 1st Respondent through separate orders dated 15.03.2023, arguing that such penalty should be part of the assessment order under Section 27 (1)(a) of the TNVAT Act. The Petitioner contended that initiating independent penalty proceedings after passing assessment orders is impermissible under the TNVAT Act. Citing relevant case law, the Petitioner argued that penalty proceedings cannot be initiated independently, as held in previous judgments of the court. Issue 2: Legality of Independent Penalty Proceedings Despite opportunities, the Respondents did not file a counter and sought time to produce judgments contrary to those relied upon by the Petitioner. The court noted that the Respondents failed to counter the argument that independent penalty proceedings cannot be initiated and that penalties should be part of the assessment order. The court considered the submissions of both parties and examined the materials on record. Judgment: The court referred to a previous Division Bench judgment that emphasized penalties should form part of the assessment order itself. The court highlighted the similarities between Section 27 (3) of the TNVAT Act and Section 16(2) of the TNGST Act, noting that both require a definite finding of willful non-disclosure of taxable turnover before imposing penalties. The court concluded that once an assessment order is passed without imposing a penalty, the assessing authority cannot subsequently initiate fresh penalty proceedings. Therefore, the court quashed the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 15.03.2023 and ordered the impugned orders imposing penalties to be quashed in the specified Tax Identification Numbers for the respective years. In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of imposing penalties under the TNVAT Act and the legality of initiating independent penalty proceedings post-assessment orders. The court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, emphasizing that penalties should be part of the assessment order and cannot be initiated separately. The court quashed the impugned penalty proceedings by the 1st Respondent, providing a comprehensive legal analysis based on relevant provisions and case law.
|
