9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of the said provision, when the offence was compounded by collecting fee as per provisions contemplated under section 32(1)(b) of the Act, it is not open to the respondent to reopen the matter and increase composition amount by invoking power under section 32(1) (a) of the Act. Further it is also to be noticed that inspections were made during the year 1996 from May 15, 1996 to May 20, 1996, however, proceedings are initiated in May, 2002 nearly after 5% years. Even for the revision of assessment, the limitation contemplated is only 4 years. Further, in view of the absence of any enabling provision to review the order passed under section 32 of the Act, the impugned order passed by the respondent is without any jurisdiction and at the be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fee of ₹ 3,000 as contemplated under section 32(1)(b) of the Act. Subsequently, in the year 2002, the respondent issued notices increasing composition amount, by invoking power under section 32(1) (a) of the APGST Act, on the allegation that the prescribed authority may accept from any persons, who has committed or is reasonably suspended of having committed an offence under the Act, where the offence consists of failure to pay or the eviction of any tax recoverable under the Act, in addition to the tax so recoverable, a sum of money not exceeding ₹ 3,000 or double the amount of tax due whichever is greater. 3. The said notices here contested by the petitioner by filing reply, stating that compounding fee can be collected at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not open to the respondent to reopen the matter and increase composition amount by invoking power under section 32(1) (a) of the Act. Further it is also to be noticed that inspections were made during the year 1996 from May 15, 1996 to May 20, 1996, however, proceedings are initiated in May, 2002 nearly after 5% years. Even for the revision of assessment, the limitation contemplated is only 4 years. Further, in view of the absence of any enabling provision to review the order passed under section 32 of the Act, the impugned order passed by the respondent is without any jurisdiction and at the belated stage. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent dated May 9, 2002 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
