9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 963 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2009 - IBRAHIM KALIFULLA F.M. AND RAJENDRAN B. , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by B. RAJENDRAN J. The State is the petitioner. The order dated April 4, 2003, passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in C.T.A. No. 326 of 2002 is under challenge. The first respondent is a manufacturer of black tea and is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as well as under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The first respondent was assessed by the assessing officer in respect of alleged misuse of form C in respect of products such as wire mesh, X-ray film and accessories purchased by the assessee from other States for which form C was utilised. The assessing authority had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by re-fixing at 50 per cent of the tax levied instead of 150 per cent as assessed by the assessing authority. Aggrieved against the said order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Pollachi, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore and contended that there was no false representation and brought to the notice of the Tribunal that subsequent inclusion in form B of the digital display counter, avery scale, copper cable, wire mesh, X-ray films and accessories would show that the assessee was eligible for inclusion of these goods in form B certificate and hence there was no mens rea for the levy of penalty as against the assessee. It is also pleaded that the assessee only acted bonafide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the penalty confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at Rs. 10,405 and Rs. 21,985. Having found on the facts that there is no mens rea or false representation, the levy of penalty is unjustified. In fact the Tribunal has also given a finding of fact that the above items were integrally connected with manufacturing activities of the appellant and were purchased under the bona fide belief that they are entitled to purchase by use of C form. Hence there was no violation of section 10(b) of the Act. When this question of having no mens rea was established by the Tribunal by its findings, whether the question of imposition of penalty under section 10(b) would arise in this case. In this connection, we are fortified by the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate of registration it is only a case under section 10(b). The inclusion of these materials subsequently and made on the belief that use of form C was only for legitimate use for the company and has so made a representation, he cannot be held guilty under section 10(b) of the Act and therefore the Tribunal came to the right conclusion that no levy of penalty could be imposed on the assessee under section 10(b) and cannot be interfered with at this stage. The findings of the Tribunal are well-founded and we find no reason to interfere with the findings especially by virtue of the latest pronouncement made by the Full Bench referred to above. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
