Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1091 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURTPenalty u/s 58 of Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 – Tribunal imposed penalty at the rate of 20% for both the quarters – Absence of power or not – Held that:- The only basis for imposing penalty can only be that there is no sufficient cause - once the sufficient cause is not there, then there can be no doubt that there will be no illegality if the minimum is imposed – the same has been held in Union of India Versus M/s Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills AND Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Versus M/s. Lanco Industries Ltd. [2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - according to the revisionist, this is a case where the revisionist’s case is on better footing - revisionist filed the return on time, but there is no provision as such for granting extension of time to make the payment - what is contemplated is time to file the return - the revisionist had accepted the juridical basis for finding the penalty was leviable, which was the absence of sufficient cause - It is not open to the revisionist to raise the questions and, that too, as substantial questions of law in a challenge against the order of the Tribunal, which was rendered in appeals filed by the Department - the attempt to get the matter re-agitated in a case where the departmental appeals were already disposed of, appears to have been highly belated and, at any rate. Effect of amendment u/s 9 of Central Act carried out in 1976 w.e.f. 5.1.1957 – Held that:- in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. versus The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1975 (11) TMI 164 - Supreme Court of India] it has been held that since penalty is a substantive matter and unless the penalty is provided for in the Central Act, no penalty could be levied by virtue of Section 9 of the Central Act, under the State Law but by validating Act the law was amended with effect from 1956 and Section 9 (2A) of the Central Act was inserted - the penalty of the nature, which is imposed would be permissible under the State Law – Relying upon Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow versus New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. [1979 (4) TMI 148 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] thus, after Section 9 (2A) of the Central Act was inserted by the amendment in 1976, there is power to visit an assessee with penalty in the circumstances made out u/s 58 of the Act – The contention of the revisionist is accepted that it is for the first time and apart from this there is no penalty levied – thus, rather than remitting the matter the penalty is reduced @ 15% in both the quarters in place of 20% fixed by the Tribunal – Decided partially in favour of revisionist.
|