9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ested in the authority or the Appellate Tribunal to either impose less or reduce the penalty less than double the amount of tax leviable under the provision. Having regard to the language employed in this provision, it is clear that the provision is mandatory in nature and no discretion is vested with the Commercial Tax Officer or the Appellate Tribunal to levy less or reduce penalty under this pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is an attempt to evade tax and finally passed an order under Section 53(12) and levied minimum penalty of ₹ 1,04,113/-, the minimum penalty payable under the aforesaid provisions. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the 1st Appellate Authority, which dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred a second appeal to the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellia Clothing Ltd. in STRP No.71/2011 decided on 2.3.2012 interpreting Section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, which is in para materia with Section 53(12) of KVAT Act, 1953, held that the minimum penalty leviable is not less than double the amount of tax leviable. 4. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reduce the tax to ₹ 10,000/- ignoring the aforesaid mandatory provision. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s vested with the Commercial Tax Officer or the Appellate Tribunal to levy less or reduce penalty under this provision. 6. In the light of the aforesaid provision of law, the Tribunal has committed a serious error in modifying the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which had imposed only the minimum penalty payable under the provision and in reducing the same. 7. For the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
