9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure A notification when the assessee had filed revised returns based on the audited certificate within time; that is before 31.10.2009? 2. Has not the Tribunal erred in affirming the penalty based on the tax liability on the inter-state transaction when admittedly the assessee had paid purchase tax based on the revised return which is the condition stipulated in Annexure A? 3. Ought not the Tribunal have set aside the penalty on the ground that Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act,2003 (for brevity "the KVAT Act" only) cannot be invoked for the purpose of levying penalty under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the CST Act" only)? 2. The brief facts to be noticed are that the assessee, a dealer in rubber for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee being entitled to file a revised return prior to 31.10.2009. The assessee asserts that it was filed within the due date ie: on 28.10.2009. What is pertinent is that there is no clear indication of the date on which the audit report was filed, in the memorandum of revision. This assumes relevance going by the words employed under Section 42(2) of the KVAT Act. 5. As against the averments made by the assessee, first appellate authority's order at Annexure-F clearly indicates that the audit report was produced on 25.09.2009. The penalty notice was issued on 12.10.2009. It is subsequent to this that the assessee has filed a revised return based on the audit report on 28.10.2009. This is specifically why we stated that the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed return along with the audit report; which was what is enabled by Section 42. The assessee attempted revision of returns only after penalty proceedings were issued, which is not permissible as per the proviso to Section 42(2). The proviso stands against the assessee and there could be no revised return accepted by the Assessing Officer against the clear mandate of the statutory provision. 7. It is in this context, that the claim of exemption has to be looked at. The exemption was wrongly claimed by the assessee who did not pay the purchase tax which was a condition as per the notification. 8. The learned Senior Counsel then argues that Section 67 could not have been invoked since the transaction is under the Central Sales Tax Act, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
