9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with reference to the stock registers. The Commercial Tax Officer by his order dated 5th October, 1976, determined such total variations at Rs. 36,916 and added the same to the admitted turnover. After disallowing certain exemptions the net turnover was determined at Rs. 9,59,390. Subsequently the Commercial Tax Officer initiate penalty proceedings and by his order dated 6th June, 1977, levied penalty of Rs. 9,982 i.e., at five times the tax alleged to have been suppressed. Against the said orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, the petitioner preferred two appeals before the Assistant Commissioner, Guntur, contending that the addition of turnover is unwarranted and levy of penalty is illegal. By common order dated 27th October, 1977, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case? The main submission of Mr. S.R. Ashok, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Tribunal committed an obvious error in thinking that penalty at five times the tax levied by the Commercial Tax Officer was still in force and it was on that mistaken premise, penalty was reduced to twice the tax. He submits that the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner modified the order of the assessing authority by holding that penalty at half the tax would meet the ends of justice. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader tried to sustain the order on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has power to enhance the penalty under clause (4) of Section 21 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act and the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Rs. 9,982 under section 14(8) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act." This is a clear mistake as the appeal against penalty was allowed to a substantial extent by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus there is a clear error apparent on the face of the record which had vitiated the order and the same is clearly unsustainable. This is not a case of enhancement of penalty as contended by the learned Government Pleader. Hence it is not necessary to consider the point raised by Mr. S.R. Ashok that the penalty cannot be enhanced without a written notice. In the result, the impugned order levying penalty equal to twice the tax is set aside. We do not propose to remand the matter to the Tribunal as it would unnecessarily protract the litigation. The order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
