9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the amendment made in 2011, the legislature was more careful in prescribing that the enhancement would be made at every place where the earlier limit had been specified. The assessee had paid up the compounding fees at ₹ 8 lakhs and had approached this Court claiming relief - The learned Single Judge refused to consider the same, since already the petitioner had paid up the compounding fees without demur. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - WA. No. 202 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2018 - MR K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR ASHOK MENON, JJ. For The Appellants : SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ For The Respondent : ADVS. SRI. K. SRIKUMAR (SR. ) AND SRI. K. MANOJ CHANDRAN JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year, would only be ₹ 2 lakhs. The first contention taken by the learned Senior Counsel is that there is no reason for including the two additional machines under the compounding scheme of Section 8 under the Act. The learned Single Judge found that the assessee having obtained the statutory benefit flowing from the composition of offence cannot turn around and question the very proposal for imposition of penalty. We, agree with the reasoning and at the outset, refuse to consider the issue, since on initiation of penalty proceedings, the respondent/ assessee had voluntarily offered to compound the offence under Section 74 of the Act. There could be no contention raised with respect to the machines not being included for the purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hors. We looked at the amendments from the respective Finance Acts, to find that the revisions or enhancements would be applicable in so far as the limit prescribed everywhere in Section 74(1) of the Act. 6. The learned Senior Counsel would point out that the proviso was brought in for the first time in 2008 by an amendment to Section 74 of the Act introducing the proviso. Later, in 2009, when amendments were made enhancing the amount from ₹ 2 lakhs to ₹ 4 lakhs, it was confined to Section 74(1) of the Act. Hence the limit in the proviso at ₹ 2 lakhs remained as such. In the year 2011, again an amendment was made substituting four lakh with eight lakh. Therein specifically it was stated that the amendment would be appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsequently, Section 74(1) of the Act was amended enhancing the limit provided from two lakhs to four lakhs. We notice that there is slight difference in the wording employed in 2009 and 2011. We also appreciate the manner in which the arguments were advanced before us, which at first blush would look attractive; but on deeper contemplation would be clearly unsustainable and untenable. 9. We have to give a purposive interpretation to the proviso and the amendments made, especially avoiding any anomalous situation in the imposition of compounding fees on offences under the Act and ensuring that the enhancements made by the legislature are not rendered nugatory. Looking at the amendment made in 2009, if we accept the contention of the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
