9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he monthly returns for the assessment year 1992-93 it was uncertain whether the turnover of sale of REP licences was taxable. The issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this court in the case of P.S. Apparels v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, T. Nagar East Assessment Circle, Madras reported in [1994] 94 STC 139 (Mad) dated April 4, 1994 confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [1996] 102 STC 106 (SC) dated May 1, 1996. The second respondent before passing the original assessment issued notice proposing to impose tax on the said turnover and also proposed to levy penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the TNGST Act for the incorrect filing of the return since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the petitioner before the Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai in O.P. No. 1063 of 2003 and subsequently transferred to this court on the abolition of the Tribunal and numbered as writ petition. I heard the argument of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. From the facts, it is clear that in respect of the assessment year 1992-93, the petitioner has filed monthly returns in which the turnover in respect of the sale of REP licences has been stated and claimed exemption as it is not a taxable turnover. It is also an admitted fact that the taxability of such turnover was a disputed issue and pending before the court. The petitioner was also a party to the proceedings before this court. This court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee-dealer. Section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act empowers the assessing authority to levy a penalty in a sum not less than 50 per cent and not more than 150 per cent of the difference in tax payable on the turnover disclosed in the return and that determined by the assessing authority, in case the return submitted by the assesseedealer is found to be incorrect and incomplete. It is not as if the assessee-dealer did not disclose the entirety of the transactions in his accounts. The admitted fact is that the assessee-dealer disclosed the entirety of the transaction in his turnover. But what was done was that a portion of the turnover was claimed to be exempted from tax, as if the said turnover represents sales of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in levying it. Till the judgment of the Madras High Court, on July 15, 1991, in Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1992] 86 STC 17, the correct position of law within the State of Tamil Nadu was not free from doubt. Even thereafter, the Sales Tax Tribunal had in subsequent orders held that transport subsidy was not includible in the taxable turnover. Such a view was held by the Tribunal till March 19, 1993. It appears that on the bona fide belief that planting and transport subsidies were not includible in the taxable turnover, the appellants had not included those amounts in their turnover and for that reason non-inclusion of these two items in the turnover does not seem to be intentional. Though we have now held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
