9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urns and pay the tax, proceedings remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, appeal is accordingly disposed of - Sales Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2011 - D. Y. Chandrachud, Anoop V. Mohta, JJ. Ratan Kumar Samal for the Appellant V. A. Sonpal, A Panel Counsel for the Respondent JUDGEMENT This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal on July 12, 2010. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2006-07. The appellant is a registered dealer under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (the MVAT Act) as well as the Central Sales Tax Act and engages in the manufacturer and sale of paint. The appellant filed returns for assessment year 2006-07 and was under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, purchase, or a sum of Rs. 1 lac whichever is less. This provision was amended with effect from August 15, 2007 by Maharashtra Act 25 of 2007. As a result of the amendment it has been provided that a penalty equal to 1/10th per cent of the total sales may be imposed. According to the appellant, the amended provision would not apply to assessment year 2006-07. Secondly, it was urged before the Tribunal that the explanation tendered by the appellant had not been considered by the first appellate authority which had come to the conclusion that the liability to levy a penalty was automatic. Both these aspects were considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal on the first issue relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj v. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire business of the company was transferred on April 1, 2007. As a consequence all the employees of the appellant were taken over by the transferee and all statutory requirements were complied with by the transferee. The new management recruited fresh staff and as such the old records pertaining to the paint business were not traceable and could not be readily identified. However, the appellant undertook to ensure compliance with the requirements of the sales tax legislation by the promoters of the appellant group. The first appellate authority has, in our view, manifestly erred in coming to the conclusion that the liability to levy a penalty was automatic on the failure to file an audit report within the prescribed time. Section 61(2) cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant for condoning the default, but we find from the order of the Tribunal that much of its reasoning is based on conjecture. The Tribunal has observed that the appellant had transferred the business from April 1, 2007 and would in all human probability be having the accounts with it for, otherwise it was not possible for the appellant to file the returns and pay the tax. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, and particularly having regard to the background that:- (i) the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax had furnished no reasons whatsoever for rejecting the explanation; and (ii) The Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax in appeal had proceeded on the wrong premise that the liability to levy a penalty was auto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
