9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s exempted from the levy of VAT. When the facts stand thus, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 08.11.2016 on the ground that the petitioner has not filed audited statement of accounts in Form 240 within 9 months after the end of the relevant year as required under Section 31(4) of the Act since the petitioner has declared the turnover in textile at Rs. 4,33,88,419 /- for the tax period 2014-15 and penalty was also sought to be imposed under Section 74(4) of the Act. The said notice dated 8.11.2016, according to the petitioner, is bad in law, as the penalty has been imposed without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the said order requires to be quashed. 3. While arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... textiles and fabrics but excluding those specified elsewhere in Third Schedule or notified by the Government. But on reading of the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial taxes, it is not for the purpose of evaluating the tax, the said not ices have been issued. It is as per the mandate of Sect ions 33 and 34 of the Act, the notices were issued. The said provision say's that when a person whose total turnover is exceeding 100 lakhs is bound to produce the said documents before the competent authority. Therefore, for non-production of the said documents, penalty has been imposed. 7. Learned counsel, insisting for reading Section 31 of the Act into Section 31(4) of the Act, submits that her turnover does not amount to tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and further penalty of Rs. 50/-per day is imposed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Of course, the order or endorsement dated 08.11.2016 disclose notice has been issued for the production of the said document with in 7days but it is not mentioned whether an earlier show cause notice was been issued to the petitioner to produce the documents, failing which, to show cause as to as to why penalty should not be imposed upon the petitioner. Even the endorsement dated 08.11.2016 does not indicate that the notice has been issued earlier specifically mentioning about the imposition of such penalty. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the authority, before levying any penalty, the petitioner should be heard i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
