9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 27(4) of TNVAT Act, 2006 cannot be applied. The amended provisions in Section 27(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 as it stood prior to 2016 read differently. There is no scope for discretion vested with an Assessing Officer while imposing penalty under Section 27(4) with effect from 30.01.2016 by virtue of Section 11 of the second amendment Act, 2016. The decision referred to supra under similar circumstances in the context of unamended Section 27(4) of the Act cannot be applied in the context of 27(4) after amendment. Therefore, there is no merits in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. - HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN For the Petitioner : Mr.U.Sriram for Mr.N.Inbarajan For the Respondent : Mr.V.Pras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x as per the above proviso, hence the ITC claimed by the purchasing dealers registered may be reversed. The penalty will be levied under Section 27(2) read with Section 27(4). As per amendment and Government Gazette Notification No:217 dated 14.10.2015, the dealer has to pay as penalty a sum which shall be 300% of the tax due in respect of such claim. As per Section 17(1) of TNVAT Act 2006, the burden of proving that any transaction or any turnover of a dealer is not liable to tax, shall lie on such dealer only. But, the dealers have failed to prove their burden of proof as required under Section 17(1) of TNVAT Act, 2006 . In addition to the tax determined under subsection (2) of Section 27 of TNVAT Act, I shall direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the provisions as it stood when the order was passed for the period covered in the case of Simran International Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Periamet Assessement Circle, Chennai reported in [2017] 9 VST-OL 333 (Mad) read differently from the provisions as it stood at the time during the period in dispute with effect from 29.01.2016. He therefore submits that there is no scope for any discretion in the imposition of penalty under Section 27(4) of the Act and therefore prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 8. The period in dispute in the present case is 2016-2017. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Provided that no penalty shall be levied without giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such imposition. 10. There is no scope for discretion vested with an Assessing Officer while imposing penalty under Section 27(4) with effect from 30.01.2016 by virtue of Section 11 of the second amendment Act, 2016. The decision referred to supra under similar circumstances in the context of unamended Section 27(4) of the Act cannot be applied in the context of 27(4) after amendment. Therefore, there is no merits in this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 11. This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
