9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of penalty under Section 12 (3) (a), in the case of non-filing of returns, is, in our view, automatic. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has not filed the returns and hence, the basis of assessment would be irrelevant - in any event, the assessing authority has rightly proceeded to assess the actuals of the sale consideration as obtained from the auctioneers and hence there is no question of best judgment assessment. This argument of the petitioner is hence rejected and levy of penalty under Section 12 (3) (a) is confirmed. Since the petitioner has raised a dispute in respect of the period for which the amounts have remained unpaid (relating to the levy of penal interest alone), let objections be submitted in writing before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore us as well and we have, vide order dated 15.10.2024, extracted below, rejected the said contention. Print the name of Ms. Amirta Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, for respondents. 2. In W.P.No.11208 of 2008, a specific contention of the petitioner is that the manner of computation of penalty is unclear in the impugned intimation dated 31.03.2008. Specific reference is made to the percentage set out in Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Act). 3. The counter filed by the respondents also does not throw any light on this aspect. Hence, a break-up of how the penalty has been arrived at in intimation dated 31.01.2008, will be provided prior to the next date of hearing with a copy served in advance upon the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ietor of his own business, two different identities altogether, while transferring the goods of the non-resident principal to himself, he not only acted as agent of his non-resident principal but also as a purchaser and there is nothing in law which militates against the said conclusions and consequent tax liability on such person. We have no hesitation to reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the pawnbroker cannot be treated as a seller of goods in the facts and circumstances of these case and, therefore, not a dealer under the Sales Tax Act. 21.It is now well-settled that any activity incidental or ancillary to the main business will also come within the definition of business under the Sales Tax Act and, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing authority has adopted 4% as the rate of tax for all the assessment years in question. This is clearly erroneous and directions for rectification have been issued in conclusion. 4. On the question of penalty, learned counsel for petitioner would rely on the decision in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) Others [125 STC 505], submitting that the levy of penalty under Section 12 (3) (a) of the Act is possible only in cases of best judgment assessment. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent relies on the decision in the case of Sakthi Sugars Limited v Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [(1985) 59 STC 52 (MAD)]. 6. The levy of penalty under Section 12 (3) (a), in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
