2021 (6) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er by the assessee as the foundation for wilful neglect - The initial onus was on the department to aver the factual foundation of fraud or wilful neglect in the show-cause notice. Only then the petitioner-assessee would have been put on adequate notice to respond to such allegation, which may entail higher penalty. In the absence of allegation of fraud or wilful neglect in the show-cause notice, the question of offering any explanation on such score did not arise. The authority wholly misdirected itself in imposing higher penalty on the premise the assessee had failed to give plausible explanation for non-disclosure of turn over - We are constrained to hold as the petitioner-assessee was not put on adequate notice with regard to imposi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T Act of the assessee for the period from April 2016 to June 2017 disclosed under declared tax to the tune of ₹ 1,11,70,118/-. Accordingly, the department proposed penalty at the rate of 100% penalty upon the dealer. Pursuant to the show-cause notice, the impugned penalty order was passed. Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-assessee argues the show-cause notice is wholly bereft of any factual matrix which would disclose fraudulent or wilful neglect on the part of the petitioner-assessee in under declaring tax. In support of his contention, he relies on a decision of this Court in Swastik Electricals Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (2012) 55 APSTJ 145. On the other hand, Sri V.Ch.Naidu, learned Gov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liability. 6. In view of the singularly laconic nature of the show-cause notice, the dealer was denied reasonable opportunity of being heard. On this account, the show-cause notice itself being defective, the subsequent order imposing penalty impugned in this writ petition is also vitiated. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order of penalty dated 24.4.2012 as well as the preceding and laconic show-cause notice dated 4.4.2012, are quashed. It is however open to the 2nd respondent to issue a proper show-cause notice, in accordance with law. No costs. The present show-cause notice also suffers from similar infirmity. There is no indication in the show-cause notice with regard to the factual foundation alleging f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X