9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es on January 22, 1982 and detected several omissions and suppressions. The business premises was inspected on January 22, 1982 and four anamath accounts marked for the sake of convenience as A, B, C, D and 10 slips were recovered under D-7 receipt. The dealer had no explanation for the suppressions and promptly filed a revised return showing all the suppressions as found by the Enforcement Wing Officers, in their return dated March 28, 1982. There was no explanation in the revised return, but the dealer simply included the entire suppressions in one sentence, under the head "omissions". The assessing authority after elaborately discussing the omissions with reference to the anamath accounts proposed to assess the dealers to the best of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,603.00 at 3 per cent 6. 1st sale of Oils As in the account 3,08,071.22 Actual suppressions 25,10,951.00 Add probable cash sale suppressions 1,18,375.00 29,37,397.22 at 4 per cent 7. 1st sale of Castor Oil: As in the accounts Nil Actual suppressions 45,911.00 45,911.00 at 4 per cent 8. 1st sale of neem seed: As in the accounts 28,190.25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty, it appears that the assessing authority has only taken the actual suppression and not the estimation of Rs. 1.18,375. After considering the objections of the petitioner, the proposals were confirmed and the penalty was also levied at 75 per cent as proposed. It is necessary to notice the reasoning of the assessing authority with reference to the imposition of penalty which is as follows: "Regarding the levy of 12(3) penalty as explained in the pre-assessment notice inclusion of the actual suppressions in one line in the day book does not mean that the suppressions have been duly accounted for. An inclusion of a transactions means purchases and sales, source of receipt, and to whom sold. If suppressions relating to a whole year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive, i.e., [1983] 54 STC 149 (AP) (Nav Swadeshi Oil Mills v. State of A.P.) is not relevant to the facts of this case. Under these circumstances, we feel that the levy of penalty at minimum by the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner is justified." 4.. Before us, Mr. N. Inbarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, makes the very same argument that the penalty should not have been levied in view of certain reported decisions. The first authority cited before us is [1966] 17 STC 465 (SC) (State of Kerala v. C Velukutty). That decision only explains the meaning of the words "best of his judgment". In this case there is no dispute that the assessment was completed according to the best of his judgment because the suppressions were p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,18,375 which was certainly not disclosed in their returns. This is a case where the assessee had adopted an adventurous attitude in boldly suppressing huge turnovers and ultimately disclosing the same when the suppressions were detected by the Enforcement Wing Officers. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the assessee was no doubt a "bad boy". Therefore, correcting the technical mistake committed by the authorities we are imposing a penalty on the sum of Rs. 1,18,375 at eke minimum rate of 50 per cent under section 12(3) of the TNGST Act as it stood at the relevant time. The moral of the case is that the guilty cannot go unpunished, and technicalities can be overcome by technicalities. Therefore, instead of the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
