9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed certain account books and slips relating to his business. On a scrutiny of the same with the regular accounts maintained by the assessee, the intelligence wing found that the assessee has suppressed a sales turnover of Rs. 7,95,709.72. This escaped assessment was added to the total taxable turnover originally fixed and the total was arrived at Rs. 21,46,839.12. On this the assessee was assessed under section 16(l) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a penalty of Rs. 17,821 was levied under section 16(2) of the Act after due notice. 2.. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Pollachi, who by his order dated 17th June, 1976, sustained the suppression to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner setting aside the order of levy of penalty. The Tribunal after hearing the authorised representative who, according to the Tribunal, finally prayed for leniency in the quantum, levied penalty under section 16(2) of the Act, with regard to the quantum, the Tribunal held that a penalty equivalent to 50 per cent of the tax due on the suppressed turnover will be sufficient and on that basis, levied a penalty of Rs. 6,211. The present revision is filed by the assessee in respect of the figure arrived at as regards the escaped turnover and in respect of the penalty levied by the Tribunal. T.C. No. 164 of 1978: 4.. This tax revision case has also been filed by the petitioner in T.C. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner. The Tribunal held that the turnover up to 18th June, 1971, was liable for assessment at 3 per cent while the turnover from 19th June, 1971, was liable for assessment at 31 per cent. Finally, the Tribunal determined the total taxable turnover at Rs. 21,47,668 and levied tax both at 3 per cent and at 3 per cent. 5.. The Tribunal next took up the question as to whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in setting aside the levy of penalty. For the same reasons as set out in the prior appeal, which is the subject-matter of T.C. No. 165 of 1978, the Tribunal held that penalty is leviable and such a penalty will be equivalent to 50 per cent of the tax due on the suppressed turnover of Rs. 6,90,998 and calculati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Commissioner since the subject-matter of the appeal before the Tribunal is the order of the appellate authority only and not the order of the original authority. Consequently, an application for restoration of the penalty in the present case will not come within the scope of section 36(3)(a)(i) of the Act and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in not restoring the order of penalty though the reasons given by the Tribunal for doing so are different. Hence the tax revision case is dismissed." 8.. As far as the present cases are concerned, it is the assessee who has filed the revision petitions both on the ground that the determination of the taxable turnover is erroneous and on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to restore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
