9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the face of the record of the case, are that a survey was conducted by the officer of the petitioner-Department on May 15, 2007 at the business premises of the respondent. On enquiry, it was noticed that the respondent had sold Naswar (snuff) amounting to ₹ 6,83,063 on inter-State basis during the period from April 1, 2007 to April 3, 2007. However, neither Central sales tax (CST) was collected, nor deposited. It was observed by the assessing officer that by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007, the tobacco products have been deleted from the category of declared goods/items under the Central Sales Tax Act and on the said basis, the Government of Rajasthan has issued a notification dated April 4, 2007, whereby the entry has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent, not only levied tax but also imposed a penalty of ₹ 27,311 under section 25(1) of the Act and further increased it double of the penalty amount, amounting to ₹ 54,622 under section 61 of the Act, vide order dated June 22, 2007. Being dissatisfied with the said penalty order dated June 22, 2007, the matter was carried before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer (for short, the DC (A) ) and the facts were reiterated before the learned DC (A). However, the learned DC (A) was not satisfied with the explanation furnished and has sustained the penalty, as aforesaid, vide order dated July 31, 2008. Being aggrieved by the order of sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, deleted the penalty of ₹ 54,680 under section 61 of the Act vide order impugned dated March 27, 2012, against which the petitioner- Department has preferred the instant revision petition. Ms. Tanvi Sahai, counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. B. Mathur, arguing counsel for the petitioner, submitted that penalty was rightly imposed by the petitioner and was subsequently sustained by the learned DC (A) also and the learned Tax Board was unjustified in deleting the same. She submitted that the respondent is a very reputed private limited company, represented by renowned advocates and the amendment made in law must have been conveyed to the respondent and even if the same was not conveyed, it was a duty of the respondent to collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x. Tax laws are complex and complicated and the amendments in law are so frequent that even the practitioners regularly practising in such laws, come to know about the amendments later on and the respondent-assessee cannot be penalised or faulted with imposition of concealment of penalty in a case like this. Something more has to be proved by the petitioner-Department while imposing penalty for concealment. It is also apparent, on perusal of facts, that all the transactions have been duly recorded in the books of accounts and in such circumstances, one cannot say that the assessee was liable for imposition of penalty under section 25(1) read with section 61 of the Act. The petitioner has failed to substantiate her arguments, particularly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
