9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority. In the light of the admitted fact that the petitioner had purchased the goods that are not covered under the Form B registration certificate issued to them, at the concessional rate against issuance of form 'C' declaration, this court has no hesitation to hold that they had violated the provisions of the CST Act, thereby attracting penalty under section 10A of the CST Act. The first respondent has rightly rendered such a clear cut finding for levying penalty on the petitioner, which warrants no interference by this court. As regards the quantum of penalty @ 150% of the tax due, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be fair and just, if the penalty is levied at 100%, instead of 150%. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o why penalty @ 150% of the tax due under section 10A of the CST Act, should not be levied on them. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner filed its objections on 19.06.2000. Being dissatisfied with the same, the third respondent passed the assessment order on 11.07.2000 imposing penalty of ₹ 39,597/- under section 10A of the Act. 3.Challenging the order of assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.P.No.587/2000(CST) before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vellore / second respondent herein, who after hearing both sides, set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal, by order dated 18.09.2001. Aggrieved over the same, the State went on appeal before the first respondent / Tribunal, which by order dated 01.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal. 5.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondents submitted that the first respondent considering all the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective and correctly passed the order impugned herein, levying penalty @ 150% of the tax due on the petitioner, which does not require any interference at the hands of this court. 6.Heard both sides and also perused the materials placed before it. 7.There is no dispute that the petitioner was issued with Form B registration certificate to purchase plant and machinery, equipments, molasses and other allied chemicals and industrial alcohol for use in manufacture of the commodity. However, they purchased the agri film and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10A of the Act. The said order was put to challenge by the State before the first respondent / Tribunal. 9.The first respondent upon considering the arguments made on both sides and having perused the connected records, was of the firm view that the petitioner had violated the provisions of the CST Act and the levy of penalty by the third respondent is correct. Accordingly, it set aside the order of the second respondent / Appellate Authority and restored the order of the third respondent / Registering Authority. For better appreciation, the findings recorded by the first respondent are extracted below: 7.It is seen from the records that the respondents had purchased agri film and cement on issue of C forms form outside the Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
