Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 255 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTPenalty under Section 69(3) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 - whether nonpayment of less than 80% of the tax alongwith return amounts to filing of a false return so as to attract the levy of penalty - Held that:- The petitioner was fully aware of its liability inasmuch as they knew the amount in terms of return, tax payable yet they have not deposited the tax. They deposited less than 80% of the due amount. This provision makes Section 69(3) of M.P.C.T.Act applicable in this case. The very fact that the petitioner knew as to what was its liability, non-payment of the said amount certainly amounted to negligence. The judgments cited by assessee does not come to rescue the petitioner. Here it was a case where the petitioner was fully aware of its liability yet decided not to deposit the tax which made it a defaulter within the definition of Section 69 of M.P.C.T.Act so as to call the return filed by him as false return. It is now well settled that the order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. To make the assessee liable for penalty fallacy should be in the disclosure of the facts required to be stated in the return. On perusal of the provisions of Section 69 and 26 of the M.P.C.T.Act it is clear that in Section 69, the liability for imposition of penalty arises on account of less payment of tax that also below 80%, when it was known fully well that it was their liability to pay full tax, whereas in the case of Section 26, the liability to pay penalty at the time of filing of the return and payment of tax, at that time of filing of the return, when tax is paid simultaneously. Both these situations are different and deals with the different situation. However, even otherwise fiscal statutes are to be construed strictly and on their plain reading reference can be made to a judgment of in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur(2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) In these circumstances, while answering the issue framed above against the petitioner, no infirmity in the order of the revisional authority. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is find appropriate to reduce the penalty from 5 times to 3 times. The petitioner would therefore be liable to pay penalty three times of the tax. If the tax un-paid and in case, he has already paid the penalty, as imposed by the assessing authority they would be entitled for refund of the balance.
|