9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emanded the matter back to the assessing officer to verify, as to whether the submission of the petitioner that the returns have been filed, is factually correct. But, the Tribunal failed to do so. In such circumstances, the order passed by the third respondent / Tribunal, restoring the levy of penalty, cannot be allowed to be sustained. The matter remanded back to the assessing officer to verify whether the petitioner had filed their returns and decide the legality of levy of penalty under section 12(3)(a) of the TNGST Act, 1959, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.Nos.38560 to 38563 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2022 - Honourable Mr.Justice R.Mahadevan And Honoura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selves registered with effect from 24.12.1997. Thereafter, they filed their consolidated returns for the assessment years viz., from 1992-93 and 1995-96 and paid taxes on the estimated turnovers. 4.Upon scrutiny of the returns filed by the petitioner, the first respondent issued show cause notices based on D3 proposal of the Enforcement Wing officials, to which, the petitioner filed their objections stating that there cannot be any liability for the year 1992-93 inasmuch as there was no transfer of property, since the construction was completed only during the year 1993-94. However, the first respondent levied tax under section 3-B of the TNGST Act on the purchases made by the petitioner in respect of sand, bricks, jelly and timber, besi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not filed returns and they had remitted the taxes only after the closure of the assessment year and upon detection of liability and concealment of the same by the Enforcement Wing Officials and hence, the returns filed by them for the year 1992-93 was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In respect of the remaining assessment years, it was found by the Tribunal that there was no return filed by the petitioner and hence, penalty under section 12(3)(a) was warranted. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court with the present writ petitions. 8.As the writ petitions are filed to the limited extent of questioning the legality of levy of penalty under section 12(3)(a) of the TNGST Act, 1959, we intend to confine ourselve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
