9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent under the provisions of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the petitioner has been duly filing monthly returns in Form VAT-200 and Form CST-VI and paying the tax applicable thereon. 3. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, petitioner affected transit sales under Section 6 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,73,56,957/- out of which Rs. 73,64,190/- pertains to the transit sales in April 2014, and Rs. 99,92,767/- pertains to May, 2014. 4. Petitioner reported transit sales turn over of Rs. 1,73,56,957/- and claimed exemption under the VAT Act, as it is relating to turn over assessment under CST Act. 5. But while filing the CST for the month of April, 2014, the turn over figures pertaining to transit sales w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eros in the end making the figure of Rs. 73,64,190/- into Rs. 73,64,19,000/- is a bona fide mistake and the correct figures have been given by the petitioner in the form VAT-200 and supporting documents have also been placed before the 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent therefore ought not to have confirmed the demand made in the show cause notice. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is contended that the petitioner has an affective alternative remedy under Section 31 of the Act and can appeal to the statutory appellate authority i.e., Appellate Deputy Commissioner, and the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be availed of. 13. In the instant case, if the petitioner were to ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars from the date of filling of the return." 17. Thus, from the above sub-rule it is clear that if a dealer who had filed a return discovers any error in the returns, he is entitled to file revised returns before an original assessment is made. 18. The Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I 1 2012(11) SCC 316 dealt with a similar situating akin to the present one, where a tax audit report filed along with the returns contained a computation error in its returns of income tax and the Supreme Court observed that human errors some time occur and merely because an Assessee has not been careful, it does not mean that Assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the Assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the Assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. 20. We are of the opinion, given the peculiar facts of the case, that the imposition of penalty on the Assessee is not justified. We are satisfied that the Assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars." 19. Since the error committed by the petitioner became known to the petitioner at the time when the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
