9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imit to conclude the re-assessment has been upheld - This amendment effected by Act No.54 of 2013 with effect from 01.04.2005 retrospectively having been held to be Constitutionally valid - assessments not barred by limitation. Maintenance of records for five years - Held that: - it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to maintain the books of account until the assessment reaches finality. Penalty - Held that: - In the absence of any notice issued by the prescribed Authority for levying penalty, imposition of penalty is ab initio void and the same deserves to be quashed - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - Writ Petition No.48879/2016 (T-CST) - - - Dated:- 20-3-2018 - MRS. S. SUJATHA J. Petitioner: [By Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, enhancing tax liability is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the re-assessment concluded under Section 39 (1) of the KVAT Act read with 9(2) of the CST Act was challenged before the First Appellate Authority who confirmed the order of the re-assessment passed by the prescribed Authority. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on four grounds. Firstly, no proposition notice was issued in as much as enhancing the tax liability and imposing interest and penalty. Secondly, the re-assessment concluded under Section 39(2) of the CST Act for the tax period 2005-06 is barred by limitation. Thirdly, Section 32 of the KVAT Act contemplates for reta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Hence, until the assessment reaches finality, the petitioner is required to maintain the books of accounts. Fifthly, learned counsel submitted that the judgment of this Court in FOSROC CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. supra, is not applicable to the facts of the present case and made an endeavour to distinguish the same. However, it is fairly submitted that no notice for imposing penalty was issued. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. This Court deems it appropriate to entertain the Writ Petition since the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction, limitation as well as taken the ground, assessment barred by violation of principles of natural justice i.e., no proposition notice issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s finality, whichever is later. As could be seen from the records, the assessment has not reached finality as on date. In such circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to maintain the books of account until the assessment reaches finality. Hence, this arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be negated. 12. Fourthly, as regards the applicability of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in as much as levying penalty where the purchaser is unable to produce the C-Form, for any reason, whatsoever, requires to be considered. But on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is evident that no notice was issued for levying penalty which is mandatory. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
