9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty has rightly been imposed by the Assessing Officer. The assesse filed his revised return when his vehicle was confiscated. The mens rea and deliberate attempt to conceal and suppress the taxable turnover by fabricating or maintaining false returns with a motive to evade the payment of tax due are the essential ingredient of Section 48 of HGST Act. No material was brought on record by the assessee to prove any deliberateness. The Assessing Officer had enough ground to impose penalty under Section 48 of the Act. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same stands dismissed. - VATAP-2-2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 14-3-2023 - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI AND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate, For the Respondent : Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana RITU BAHRI, J. The present appeal has been filed under 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'Act 2003 ) seeking setting aside of orders dated 12.08.1994, 23.03.1995, 13.07.2012, 31.07.2012 (A-3). The case in brief is that the appellant-Company is engaged i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther argued that there is no suppression of turnover to attract penalty under Section 48 of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. Learned counsel is relying upon the following judgments:- 1. State of Tamil Nadu vs. Lucky Radio House, 1995 SCC Online Mad 804 2. M/s Jagat Tractors vs. State of Haryana, STI 1981 PB HN. Tribunals 182 3. Khosla Mills vs. State of Punjab and others, 1972 SCC Online P H 424 4. M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd vs. State of Orissa, 1969 (2) SCC 627 5. Anantharam Veerasinghaiah and Co. vs. CIT, 1980 Supp SCC 13 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that the appellant was not honest and has not disclosed the actual tax liability. He was making inter-State sales by dispatching goods to the dealers situated outside the State of Haryana. It was only after a detention of a consignment at the STCB, Faridabad that the appellant was made to revise the first two quarterly returns after verification from the Depots of Ghaziabad and Faridabad. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are of no help to the appellant. In Lucky Radio Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties for failure to register as a dealer was justified. It was held that the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in registering as a dealer. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not be imposed merely it is lawful to do so. In Anantharam Veerasinghaiah s case (supra), Hon ble the Supreme Court was examining a case of assessee who was an Abkari Contractor. He filed a return of his income. The Income Tax Officer did not accept the correction of the return. He observed that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its, and therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs.75,000/- under Section 27 (1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was disposed of and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal to take up the appeal and to re-determine it conformably to the judgment. It was held by Hon ble the Supreme Court that the fact that there e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed correct return and observed that this was done with a view to avoid the payment of tax. He, therefore, issued notice to the petitioner proposing to levy penalty u/s 48 of the 1973 Act. The same was accompanied by a detailed memo containing the facts relating to the incorrect return. In the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner, it was pleaded that difference between quarter to quarter is due to the practice of paying tax on receipt of sale proceeds invoice. It was also pleaded that the legal requirements of paying tax on purchase value at the time of dispatch is impracticable by reason of impossibility of computing the purchase value of paddy. It was further pleaded that the tax due for the third quarter had been paid in the fourth quarter. In the course of hearing before the Assessing Authority, the petitioner s representative submitted that the tax was withheld in the third quarter to tide over the financial crisis faced by the firm. The Assessing Authority did not accept the explanation of the petitioner and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,31,455 vide his order dated May 10, 1980. The first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Act, 1922. The Income Tax Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 66,000. This was reduced by the appellate authority to Rs. 44,000. Subsequently, he rectified the order u/s 35 and confirmed the penalty of Rs. 66,000. The Tribunal took the view that penalty proceedings were criminal in nature and the onus lay on the department to show by adequate evidence that the amount of cash was of a revenue nature and that the assessee had concealed it or deliberately furnished false particulars. The Tribunal held that no penalty could be imposed on the assessee because no evidence was brought on record to show that he had deliberately furnished incorrect particulars of income. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that penalty proceedings were quasi-criminal in nature and burden lay on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, the department will be deemed to have discharged the burden because the material brought on record amply establish that the petitioner had knowingly filed incorrect return and suppressed the purchase of paddy valued at Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
