Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (6) TMI 772 - CST, VAT & Sales Tax
Head Note / Extract:
Concessional rate of tax - purchase of tin containers, for packing purposes, against Form XVII declaration - levy of penalty under section 3(3) of the TNGST Act - quantum of penalty at 150% imposed on the petitioner by the assessing officer, which was restricted to 100% by the appellate authority - assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that prior to amendment of section 3(3), the packing materials were excluded from the concessional rate of tax against form XVII declaration and there is no material to prove that the tin containers purchased by the petitioner were used in the manufacturing activity, this court finds no good reason to interfere with the well considered findings of the Authorities below, disallowing the concessional rate of tax under section 3(3), against issuance of form XVII declaration, during the material point of time - thus, concessinal rate of tax is not available to the petitioner. Levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- As rightly held by the third respondent, when the petitioner is not entitled to claim concessional rate of tax under section 3% of the TNGST Act, they are liable to pay penalty under section 23 of the TNGST Act, for violation of the provision of section 3(3). Accordingly, the assessing officer levied penalty and the same was affirmed by the appellate authorities, which in the opinion of this court, warrants no interference, as the issue relating to claim of concessional rate of tax under section 3(3), is decided against the petitioner. The issue regarding levy of penalty is also answered against the petitioner. Quantum of penalty at 150% determined by the first respondent / assessing officer, which was subsequently, restricted to 100% by the second respondent / appellate authority as affirmed by the third respondent / Tribunal - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty is slightly on the higher side and hence, the same is reduced to 50%, in the opinion of this court. Accordingly, the issue raised herein is answered in favour of the petitioner. Petition allowed in part.