9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e periods in question and failed to remit the tax due for the said periods. Non-remittance of tax due under the Act and Rules is an offence coming within the purview of Section 45A. In such case the authority is entitled to impose penalty to the tune of twice the amount of tax evaded or sought to be evaded. Therefore I am of the opinion that the view taken by the authorities that non-payment of tax due is not a technical offence and imposition of penalty at twice the amount of tax is sustainable. First revisional authority had already taken a lenient view and reduced the quantum of penalty to equal the amount of tax. I do not think any further reduction of the quantum is warranted. However, considering the fact that the order imposing pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-filing of return was due to various circumstances prevailed which had prevented the petitioner from filing the return within the due dates. It was further contended that the non-filing of returns was only a technical offence for which no penalty can be imposed on the basis of the tax amount due. But the 2nd respondent found that non-filing of return and non-payment of tax was not a technical offence. Further it was found that non-payment of tax was not a single instance for any particular month, but it continued and even after issuing notice proposing penalty the petitioner had failed to file returns and to pay the tax. However, taking a lenient view on the basis that the tax due has already been remitted subsequently, the penalty was dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of non-filing of returns and non-payment of tax due. Therefore it is contended that the petitioner was virtually prevented from filing returns and from paying tax. It is also contended that the petitioner was facing acute financial stringency during the relevant time which need consideration for a reduction of the quantum of penalty imposed. 5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents stoutly opposed the above submissions. It is pointed out that no such ground was raised either before the original authority or before the revisional authorities. It is further contended that, financial stringency is not a ground to evade payment of tax and the petitioner had kept custody of tax amount collected from customers without pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case this court upheld the view taken by the authorities concerned in fixing the quantum of penalty considering the gravity of offence and other circumstances.. 8. Learned Government Pleader had placed reliance on the decision in Zakir Hussain V. Additional Sales Tax officer (1993 (1) KLT 265), wherein it is held that unauthorised retention of the collected tax payable to the State would amount to evasion as contemplated under Section 45A of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further pointed out decisions of this court under the Income Tax Act, Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd. (1989) 183 ITR 471 (Ker.), E.K. Varghese and another V. Income Tax officer and others (1974) 96 ITR 577 (Ker.) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
