9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (2) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inspection of the appellant s premises. Stocks were also taken. According to the assessing authority those indicated sales suppressions. He therefore proposed an addition to the taxable turnover. He however did not propose to levy any penalty as is evident from his notes of check as available at page 683-684 of the assessment file in the following words : "Since the dealers had paid the compounding fees fixed by the Department against the different is stock and sales suppression noticed in addition to the tax due and the actual suppression s detected on further action under s. 12(3) is deemed to be necessary in this case". He therefore did not propose to levy penalty in the preassessment notice also. He made substantial additions to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such fresh opportunity. He found that there was suppression and that such suppression was wilful . He further found that the appellant had admitted sales suppressions and had even paid the tax due on the suppressed sales turnover by a cheque. Under the circumstances, he felt that the suppression was clearly established. As regards the legal objection he pointed out that after the amendment to s. 12(3) by Act 31/72, it was not necessary to have levied penalty at the time of original assessment. He therefore levied the maximum penalty of Rs. 10,782 by a fresh order. The appellant filed an appeal wherein he reiterated his contention before the assessing authority. He had taken the further ground that since tax was paid immediately on inspecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss, the probability of the appellant s explanation, etc. have not been considered by the authorities below. He cited a number of authorities for his claim that the absence of finding of wilfulness in the initial assessment cannot be rectified subsequently. According to him, the scope of amendment to s. 12(3) by Act 31/72 has not been understood properly by the authorities. He claimed that an assessment which was already made before 1st Dec., 1972 cannot come under the purview of this amendment. He therefore argued that the penalty sustained was wrong both in law and on facts. The learned state Representative and the other hand claimed that the suppressions were patent from the records seized. The appellant himself had admitted same. The fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of assessments made subsequent to amendment. In this case, there is a mere change of opinion and we do not feel that such a change can vest the assessing authority with jurisdiction to "re-consider" the issue. If such reconsideration were permissible, there will be not finality to any proceedings. In the view, we have taken it is not necessary for us to go into the further question whether the amendment to s. 12(3) by Act 31/72 is merely prospective. We would also like to add that the Appellant s others arguments on penalty are also not without basis. The probability of the appellant s explanation that these are included in each sales has not been considered fresh for penalty purposes. The possibility of the appellant s admission e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
