Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 1998 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1998 (8) TMI 557 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues:
1. Challenge to proceedings confirming penalty under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
2. Discontinuation of excise duty payment post the formation of Kerala State Beverages Corporation.
3. Inclusion of excise duty in taxable turnover and liability of the petitioner.
4. Mens rea of the petitioner in omitting excise duty from taxable turnover.
5. Interpretation of penalty provisions under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.
6. Applicability of judicial precedents on penalty imposition for failure to fulfill statutory obligations.
7. Consideration of excise duty as part of the sale amount and its inclusion in turnover.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for concealing excise duty in the taxable turnover. The impugned proceedings found deliberate concealment, warranting maximum penalty.

2. Post the Kerala State Beverages Corporation's formation, the petitioner ceased excise duty payment, with the Corporation remitting the duty. The system changed in 1985, restoring the liability to pay excise duty. The petitioner argued exemption from excise duty liability due to the prevailing system.

3. The petitioner omitted to include excise duty paid by the Corporation in the taxable turnover, despite forming part of the consideration for sale. Authorities found the excise duty paid by the purchaser to be part of the petitioner's turnover.

4. The crucial question was the petitioner's mens rea in omitting excise duty from the taxable turnover. A bona fide belief exempting the duty might prevent penalty imposition for submitting a false return.

5. Judicial precedents emphasized penal imposition for deliberate defiance or contumacious conduct. The discretion to impose penalties must consider all relevant circumstances judiciously.

6. Precedents highlighted contumacious or fraudulent conduct as the basis for penalty under section 45A of the Act, evaluated based on probabilities.

7. The Supreme Court precedent clarified excise duty as part of the sale consideration, includible in turnover. The petitioner's deliberate omission of excise duty warranted penalty imposition, despite changes in Warehouse Rules.

In conclusion, the penalty was upheld but reduced due to excessive imposition, with the petitioner's deliberate actions leading to the penalty. The judgment emphasized the importance of fulfilling statutory obligations and submitting accurate returns to avoid penalties.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates