9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner, the sales suppression could not have come to light. In such event, the third respondent is wholly justified in imposing double the sale suppressed amount in the revised assessment proceedings together with 150% of penalty. The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have also dealt with this aspect and refused to accede to the plea of the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the order, which is impugned in this writ petition, is not required to be interfered with. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already paid the entire disputed tax amount as well as a portion of the penalty amount to the tune of ₹ 13,651/-, this Court is inclined to reduce the balance amount payable by the petitioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. Based on the records so recovered, the second respondent passed a revised assessment order dated 31.10.2002, by working out the actual suppression of turnover at ₹ 5,30,864/- , for which, an equal addition of the same amount was made, thereby the total taxable turnover was worked out at ₹ 10,61,728/-. That apart, a penalty of ₹ 95,556/- was also levied under Section 16(2) of TNGST Act. 3. Aggrieved by the revised order of assessment dated 31.10.2002, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) in A.P. No. 35 of 2003 and the same was dismissed on 7.7.2004. Challenging the order dated 07.07.2004, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the first respondent in C.T.A. No. 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -, an amount of ₹ 13,651/- had already been paid leaving the balance amount of only ₹ 81,905. Thus she confines her arguments to the extent of issuing appropriate direction to waive the balance penalty amount alone. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the second respondent would submit that on the basis of incriminating materials recovered during the course of inspection by the Enforcement Wing Officials, sales suppression amount was worked out and equal addition of the same amount was arrived at, along with penalty @ 150% being ₹ 95,556/-. On appeal, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have rightly held that the actual sales suppression could be unearthed only after the inspection condu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
