9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is invited proceedings under Section 45A of the KGST Act. Though the maximum penalty of double the amount of tax was levied at the first instance, that is seen reduced by the first appellate authority and what is now levied is only equal amount of tax. The learned Single Judge has also waived the penal interest levied on the appellant. Therefore, maximum leniency has been shown to the appellant. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isposing of W.P. (C)No. 18011/2008 filed by the appellant. The appellant is conducting a bar hotel. During the period from April 2005 to January 2006 and November 2006 and December, 2006, the appellant did not file its returns under the KGST Act ('the Act' for short) or remit the tax due. This led to initiation of proceedings under Section 45A of the Act and penalty of double the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eader appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd. [(1989)183 ITR 471] and T.R.Ramachandran v. Sales Tax Officer [1977 (106 STC) 413 (Ker)] and contended that when the default is properly explained and where it is established that it was due to reasons beyond the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... funds, etc. Before the Commissioner, the contention raised was that the breach was a technical one and therefore did not merit levy of penalty. These orders, therefore, show that the contention now raised before us that the business was at a loss and that the KFC had taken over the establishment which prevented the appellant from filing the monthly returns or remitting the tax were not contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
