9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxQuantum of Levy of penalty - Liability of revision petitioner to pay the due tax with penalty - motor spare parts which had been given away by the revision petitioner - HELD THAT - In view of the legislative change that has taken place by reducing the volume of the penalty and keeping in consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the penalty reduced from 200% to 100%, but this will not create any precedent for any other case, in as much as, no principle laid down to be applied generally. The revision petitioner is directed to pay the tax and the penalty within a period of two months from today - the revision petition stands disposed of.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include challenge to an order passed by the Full Bench of the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal regarding liability of tax and penalty on a dealer for not reflecting discounts granted to buyers and giving away spare parts without any price. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Challenge to Order Regarding Liability of Tax and Penalty The revision petition was filed under Section-80 of the Odisha Value Added Tax, 2004, challenging the order passed by the Full Bench of the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal. The petitioner, a dealer, did not reflect the discounts granted to buyers while selling automobiles. It was noted that spare parts were given away without any price in lieu of discount, with no reflection of such discount in any record. The appellate authorities held the petitioner liable to pay the due tax with penalty for the spare parts given away. The petitioner's counsel highlighted a legislative change in 2015 which reduced the penalty from 200% to 100%, seeking the benefit of this change. Issue 2: Contention of Addl. Standing Counsel The Addl. Standing Counsel for CT & GST contended that there was no infirmity in the judgment and argued against the revision petition, stating that no substantial question of law was involved. The counsel maintained that the judgment should not be interfered with at this stage. Judgment and Decision After hearing both parties, the Court found merit in the submission of the Addl. Standing Counsel and upheld the finding regarding the liability of tax and penalty. However, considering the legislative change reducing the penalty and the specific circumstances of the case, the penalty was reduced from 200% to 100%. The Court clarified that this decision would not set a precedent for other cases. The revision petitioner was directed to pay the tax and penalty within two months from the date of the judgment. Subsequently, the revision petition was disposed of, and an urgent certified copy of the order was to be granted in accordance with rules.
|
