9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellate Tribunal was justified in disturbing the finding of the first appellate authority that no evidence was available on record to levy penalty when no new circumstances were placed on record before the Appellate Tribunal? 3.. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in imposing penalty in the absence of the relevant evidences? 4.. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case, the honourable Tribunal was right in law in not setting aside the entire penalty when it came to a finding that the department had failed to prove that the petitioner had knowingly produced the declaration to avoid the payment of tax which is a necessary ingredient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the facts and circumstances of the case, the KST is right in reducing the penalty amount under section 6A(3) of the KST Act when the provision is mandatory after recording a finding that the assessee has produced bogus form 31B? Both the petitions are clubbed together for consideration and a common order is passed. Heard Sri Shankare Gowda, learned counsel for the assessee. He would argue that the assessee is a victim of circumstances. According to him, it was his representative who has played some mischief for which the assessee is suffering for no fault on his part. He says that the assessee is a bona fide dealer and that therefore this court has to consider his case sympathetically. Per contra, Smt. Sujatha, learned Government A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur to show that M/s. Shantala Enterprises were the first dealer in the State. During investigation it is noticed that form 32B declaration produced by the assessee was a bogus document and that it was a created document. Contention of the appellant was that his previous sales tax practitioner has committed a mistake and therefore he should not be punished. After noticing all these aspects of the matter, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the assessee produced a bogus document in form 32B in support of his exemption and that it was rightly disallowed and taxed as first dealer. However, the Tribunal treating his case as a special case has chosen to reduce the penalty from Rs. 18,76,689 to 6,26,563. After going through the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea of ignorance as sought to be pleaded before us. No acceptable materials are placed on record with regard to ignorance plea. It is also to be seen that the assessee has not chosen to take any action against his representative for the purpose of bogus documents and his inaction also would show that all is not well in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee has to suffer penalty on the facts of this case. Having come to the conclusion that the assessee has to suffer penalty, it is un-understandable to us as to why the Tribunal has treated the case as special case . There is no speciality involved in this case. Moreover, the Act provides for a minimum penalty. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
