Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1048 - MADRAS HIGH COURTPenalty u/s 27(3) of TNVAT Act, 2006 - deemed assessment - while dealing with penalty, the respondent has pointed out that the petitioner is a registered dealer only with effect from November, 2013. If the petitioner was not a registered dealer before November, 2013, then, obviously, the petitioner could not have been deemed to have been assessed under Section 22 of TNVAT Act, 2006, prior to the said period - whether the respondent was justified in imposing penalty @ 150% of the tax due, on the petitioner? Held that: - to impose penalty, it would be sufficient to merely mention that there was wilful non-disclosure on the part of the petitioner and that, but for audit, the matter would not have come to light. What is required to be examined is whether the conduct of the assessee was wilful - In the case on hand, except alleging that there has been wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had deliberately acted with an intention to avoid payment of tax. In fact, all the materials have been gathered from the monthly returns filed by the petitioner and there is no other allegation to show that the petitioner had wilfully suppressed the turnover or refused to pay tax an intentionally avoided payment of tax. In such circumstances, the question of levy of penalty on the petitioner for the assessment years 2012-2013 & 2015-2016 does not arise - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|