Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2012 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 795 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImposition of penalty u/s 67 of the KVAT Act - the Department alleged that the sale of timber being at rates lesser than that prescribed in the aforesaid circular; leads to undervaluation and consequent evasion of tax - petitioner's case is that the authority, under the said provision, suffers from an inherent lack of jurisdiction to make an attempt to estimate the turnover; which power and jurisdiction is conferred only on the officer conducting assessment proceedings. Does the provision enumerating the offences and conferring the power for imposition of penalty in cases where tax is actually evaded or sought to be evaded, more specifically Section 67 of the KVAT Act, clothe the authority with the power to make an estimation of the turnover for the purposes of determining the penalty? - Held that: - Any suppression detected or rather any file generated on a crime so detected and penalised necessarily gives the assessing authority the power to make estimations to compensate the State against probable omissions and suppressions. Such exercise, as is mandated by the statute, has to be regulated by the best judgment of the individual officer which definitely is subject to the principles of reasonableness, proportionality and of course natural justice. Such estimation on best judgment would definitely have to be done with due notice and after affording a personal hearing. Such estimation should be reasonable and should have a nexus with the gravity and frequency of the commission of offences as also the quantum of loss suffered by the State. This exercise, in our opinion, cannot be undertaken by the officer empowered with the power to impose penalty u/s 67 of the Act. Section 67 contemplates imposition of penalty on proof of commission of offences as a measure of deterrence; best judgment assessments are made to compensate the loss caused to the State - question answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. Scope of Circular No.28/2008, dated 19.06.2008 - Would the prescription of rates for the purpose of collecting advance tax in the case of evasion prone commodities; bind and restrict the dealers from claiming sale of such commodities at a lesser rate resulting in tax liability only for such lesser amounts? - Held that: - The first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal was considerably swayed by the possibility of the dealer claiming refunds of input tax credit. It ought to have been noticed that the circular was issued as a measure to plug evasion of tax and the same was not intended to augment revenue, but to ensure collection of tax due to the State. On the sale price being lesser than that prescribed in the circular, refund of input tax is a natural consequence and that alone cannot be a reason to claim tax for amounts higher than that for which the goods were sold - the Intelligence Officer cannot apply his judgment at the reasonable best for inferring suppression and thereby estimating turnover, for the simple reason that such power has not been conferred by Section 67 of the KVAT Act. Revision allowed - decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee.
|