9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner seeks to forbear the respondent from [proceeding with a notice dated September 1, 1992], proposing to impose a penalty under section 12(5)(iii) for the year 1990-91. 2.. In T.P. No. 1789 of 1997 (W.P. No. 13371 of 1993), the petitioner is seeking a similar writ to forbear the respondent from imposing a penalty under section 12(5)(iii) for the year 1991-1992. 3.. In. T.P. No. 1796 of 1997 (W.P. No. 14242 of 1993), the petitioner is seeking to quash the order dated July 13, 1993, in respect of the assessment year 1990-91, apparently because the notice impugned in T.P. No. 1787 of 1997, had culminated to a final order. The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has no jurisdiction to impose a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment assumed power to fix the price of liquor. Inspite of the escalated cost the Government refused to consider a fair price to the products of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, moved the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 2099 of 1991 seeking to quash the order of the Commissioner fixing prices. By an order dated July 2, 1991, the High Court directed refixation of the price as per the direction given therein relating to the various factors to be taken into consideration. This order was confirmed in W.A. No. 1007 of 1991 on January 8, 1992. The Government in G.O.D. 482 dated March 11, 1992, revised the prices in accordance with the judgment of the High Court. As a result, the Government directed the TASMAC to pay Rs. 5.14 crores toward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 25.9.92 P.O.261085/29.7.92 261409/ 7.8.92 043671/ 25.9.92 1991-92 Price revision 2,17,55,769.75 62,59,356.33 25.9.92 P.O.261085/29.7.92 043671/ 25.9.92 Total 7,39,49,505.30 1,93,16,897.63 7. It is under these circumstances, that the petitioners were visited with notices dated November 27, 1992 for the year 1989-90 and September 1, 1992 for the year 1990-91 proposing to impose penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The contents of the notice is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with the tax on or before April 30, 1992 and therefore, the right of the Government to impose penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act cannot be denied. 8.. Elaborating the affidavit filed in support of the petition Mr. C. Natarajan, Senior Counsel has taken us through the relevant provisions of law and submits that section 16-C inserted by Tamil Nadu Act No. 78 of 1986. It commences with a non obstante clause and says that if a dealer receives in any year any amount due to price variations, he shall within 30 days from the end of the year in which such amount is received, submit a return in the prescribed form to the assessing authority. Sub-clause (c) of section 16 enables the assessing authority to rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lature. Mr. C. Natarajan, the learned Senior Counsel is therefore, right in arguing that there is no power under section 16-C to impose any penalty. 9.. But the authorities have referred to section 12(5)(iii) for imposing the penalty. The argument of Mr. C. Natarajan, is, that in respect of the respective assessment years, the authorities have already invoked section 12(5)(iii) for imposing penalty. Therefore, it is contended that the power under section 12(5)(iii) for the respective assessment years having been exhausted it is not open to the authorities to once again invoke section 12(5)(iii) for imposing a penalty. In any event, section 16-C does not anywhere say that in respect of an assessment under section 16-C the provisions of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be correct. The debit note sent to TASMAC claiming the differential price is dated March 13, 1992. It can be taken at the entire differential cost was received on March 13, 1992. The sales tax on the differential cost of Rs. 7. 36 crores was paid by TASMAC on July 29, 1992. The petitioners and the sales tax on the differential cost on July 29, 1992 (sic). As already stated the returns in form AA2 was submitted on September 25, 1992. Technically, the petitioners had delayed the filing of the return and payment of the tax under section 16-C by a few months. As already stated, the petitioners were bound to file the return and the tax on or before April 30, 1992. But, it is the lack of power in the authorities to impose penalty that makes us a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
