9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Error in the return - rectification of mistake - it is contended that VAT returns are not taken into consideration for finalization of the CST returns and that CST assessment under sub-Rule 5-A of 14 A of CST (Telangana) Rules - HELD THAT:- 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 - The Supreme Court in PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOLKATA - I [ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] dealt with a similar situating akin to the present one, where a tax audit report filed along with the returns contained a comput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short the Act ). 2. Petitioner was engaged in execution of works contracts and is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent 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 ₹ 1,73,56,957/- out of which ₹ 73,64,190/- pertains to the transit sales in April 2014, and ₹ 99,92,767/- pertains to May, 2014. 4. Petitioner reported transit sales turn over of ₹ 1,73,56,957/- and claimed exemption unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the mistake in the filing of the CST returns in relation to the figures pertaining to transit sales. 10. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition is filed. 11. Counsel for the petitioner contends that adding of two zeros in the end making the figure of ₹ 73,64,190/- into ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to refer to sub-Rule 5-A of Rule 14-A of the CST (Telangana) Rules which states as under: (5-A) Every dealer shall be deemed to have been assessed to tax, based on returns filed by him, if no assessment is made with in a period of four years 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 computa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the Assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The caliber and expertise of the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
