9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... developed by Symix India Corporation Limited. Though a particular code was incorporated to calculate the tax at the applicable rate, after apportioning the basic price, nevertheless the rate of tax was calculated at four per cent instead of two per cent, by mistake, and that in the return for the year 2001-02, Rs. 4,20,77,954 was declared as "Central sales tax collected", are the statement of facts in the petition. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Transition I), Mysore, the assessing authority, issued a penalty notice dated May 23, 2005 pointing out that the petitioner-assessee company collected Rs. 4,20,77,954 from the customers towards "CST" at the rate of four per cent as verified from the books of account and in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority is correct?" There is no dispute that sub-section (2) of section 9 of the CST Act, 1956, empowers the authority to impose and collect penalty while section 18A of the KST Act, 1957, provides for penalty for collection in contravention of section 18, which mandates that a registered dealer shall not collect any amount by way of tax at a rate or rates exceeding the rate or rates at which he is liable to pay tax under the Act. Section 18A of the KST Act, 1957, makes it abundantly clear that where any amount is calculated by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax from any person by any dealer in contravention of section 18, whether knowingly or not, such dealer shall pay the entire amount so collected, to the assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was the duty of the authority to consider as to whether the declaration of four per cent tax was made with mala fide and unreasonable intentions. It is needless to state that the petitioner having filed the return declaring the amount of CST collected at four per cent, the contention advanced that the mistake was on account of an error in feeding the particular code in the accounting system, was an arguable contention requiring serious consideration by the authorities. It is true that imposition of penalty under section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956 is penal in character and that unless filing an inaccurate return is accompanied by a guilty mind, the section cannot be invoked, as held by the apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Oriss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
