9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deliberate false returns. The authorities having failed to apply their mind to the contention, it cannot but be said that the orders of the assessing authority, annexure "A", and the orders impugned of the appellate authorities are unsustainable. In the circumstances, the question of law as raised in the petition is answered accordingly. W.P. allowed. - - - - - Dated:- 16-5-2009 - RAM MOHAN REDDY AND NARAYANA SWAMY L. , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by RAM MOHAN REDDY J. The petitioner, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and a registered dealer since 1981, engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture and marketing of computer hardware and software, received a purchase order stipu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,79,163 representing 10 per cent of Rs. 97,91,629 the excess tax collected. That order when carried in appeal registered as CST/AP.13/2005-06 before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore Division, Mysore, was dismissed by order dated January 28, 2006, annexure B . Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred STA No. 260 of 2006 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore, which when clubbed with STA Nos. 259 and 261 of 2006 was dismissed by a common order dated December 19, 2008, impugned herein. Hence, this petition. The petitioner has raised the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case the Karnatak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CST Act, 1956, the penalty of Rs. 9,79,163 represents 10 per cent of Rs. 97,91,629, being the excess amount collected as CST at four per cent instead of two per cent by the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that the returns filed declaring Rs. 4,20,77,954 being four per cent CST were bona fide mistake due to a fault in entering the code in the Symix accounting system for calculating tax at four per cent instead of two per cent. That being the contention canvassed by the petitioner before the assessing authority and the appellate authorities, it was incumbent on the authorities to consider whether such a plea of filing a return declaring collection of Central sales tax at four per cent was under a bona fide mistake. In other w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... care and therefore, it could be inferred that the returns filed are deliberate false returns. The authorities having failed to apply their mind to the contention, it cannot but be said that the orders of the assessing authority, annexure A , and the orders impugned of the appellate authorities are unsustainable. In the circumstances, the question of law as raised in the petition is answered accordingly. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated October 25, 2005, annexure A , of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Transition I), Mysore; the order dated January 28, 2006, annexure B , of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore and the order dated December 19, 2008 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
