9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,038 and ₹ 11,72,772 including the penalty has been imposed against the petitioner under the provisions of the M. P. VAT Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to the VAT Act ). The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of VAT Act. He was awarded registration TIN No. 23935302638. The dispute in the present petition relates to the assessment years of April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 and April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009. The petitioner had submitted return regularly and he also paid the tax payable by him under the VAT Act. He was assessed for both the periods vide orders of assessment dated May 25, 2010 and January 28, 2010. Subsequently, an audit objection was raised by the audit officer that a tax at four per cent. was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tributable to the dealer, impose upon him a penalty not exceeding 3.5 times the amount of tax so assessed or re-assessed but shall not be less than three times the amount of tax assessed. In accordance with the aforesaid section, if the omission is attributed to the dealer, the penalty can be imposed. In the present case, the petitioner submitted his return and thereafter assessment was made. Subsequently, the auditor pointed out that the assessment was not made at the proper rate. The honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC) AIR 1970 SC 253 has held as under in regard to imposition of penalty under section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (14 of 1947) (page 214 in 25 STC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hya Pradesh reported in [2011] 45 VST 58 (MP) has held as under in regard to imposition of penalty in exercise of powers under section 28(1) of the Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (pages 60 and 61 in 45 VST): 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the dealer had already deposited the amount of tax, but the Commercial Tax Officer refunded the amount to the petitioner and the liability of tax was not denied by the petitioner. Apart from this, there was no omission on the part of the dealer in refunding the amount and it was in fact error on the part of the Commercial Tax Officer who directed for refund of the tax, then such penalty could not have been imposed. From the aforesaid judgments of the court, it is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
