9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the year 2014-2015 were filed by the petitioner and on the other hand, he holds that no monthly returns were filed. Furthermore, the respondent, proceeds to impose tax and penalty based on mismatch in information. This Court, has repeatedly, held that mismatch in information cannot be the sole basis for imposing tax and penalty. In case, respondent was desirous of confirming the proposal, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 61,382/- and penalty in the sum of ₹ 92,073/- 5. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the respondent has proceeded to pass the said order on account of the variation in the information, which was available on the department website, and that which was reflected in the monthly returns filed on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent appears to have found fault in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent could not have imposed tax and penalty on the petitioner, merely for the reason that there was a variation in the information as available on the Department website as against that which was reflected in the monthly return. 6.2. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the following judgments of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the proposal for levy of tax and penalty. Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, further submits that he cannot but accept the fact that the judgments referred to by the petitioner were binding on the respondent. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Clearly there is an contradiction in the impugned order. On the one hand, the respondent says that all monthly returns for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
