9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if it is no so supported, then exercise of discretion has to be held to be arbitrary - there is no reason assigned by the Tribunal to reduce the penalty. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal reducing the quantum of penalty is not justified and not sustainable - Tax Case Revisions are allowed. - Tax Case Revision Nos.73 to 75 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam And Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.Manjula For the Petitioner : Ms.V.Usha, AGP (Puducherry) For the Respondents : No Appearance COMMON ORDER T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. These Tax Case Revisions have been filed by the Commercial Taxes Department under Section 60 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 ('PVAT Act' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion on the pretext that he can be able to avoid penalty burden. 4. The respondents/assessees are all registered dealers on the file of the petitioner-Department initially under the provisions of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967 ('PGST Act' for brevity) and subsequently under the provisions of the PVAT Act. 5. It may not be necessary for this Court to elaborately set down the factual matrix leading to the assessment orders dated 30.09.2002, 20.12.2001 and 30.09.2002 respectively. 6. In these tax case revisions, we are only concerned about the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal in reducing the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal elabo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 and 99 to 103 of 2019, etc, and though there were other questions, which were framed for consideration, two of the questions were whether in the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 24(3) of the PVAT Act, which is in pari materia with Section 13(3) of the PGST Act. The Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by assigning the following reasons: 40.The final aspect would be whether penalty levied by the Assessing Officer requires interference or not. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that mens rea is required and in this regard, placed strong reliance in Tvl. Nu-Tread Tyres (supra), which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same, more particularly, when the allegation is there is large scale suppression of taxable turnover. Thus, mens rea is writ large on the face of the record. There is no further proof required to establish the blameworthy conduct of the dealer. Though we may not be fully justified in examining the past conduct of the dealer, especially when they had succeeded in the earlier writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4385 to 4392 of 2009, which also arose out of the same type of transaction in the previous years and the Department having not filed an appeal yet, this would be a clear indicator as regards the modus operandi of the dealer. Thus, we safely conclude that there was sufficient mens rea on the part of the dealer and this can be gathered from their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he entire details were furnished along with the pre-assessment notice. It is not the case of the dealer that they wanted some more documents, which the Department did not furnish. No such request was made by the dealer. As pointed out by us earlier, the documents, namely, the C-Form declarations, which were put to the petitioner, were confronted as a document/declaration signed by the dealer. 45.Thus, we find that there is no error in the decision making process as done by the Assessing Officer and such order was rightly affirmed by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal. However, we do not subscribe to the order passed by the Tribunal in interfering with the penalty and reducing the same, considering the hard facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
