Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 987 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTPenalty u/s 7-A(2) of AP GST Act, 1957 - penalty levied on the ground of mere possession of the bills alleged to be false though the Petitioner did not produce the same before the assessing authority in support of claim or exemption as second sale - burden to prove - case of petitioner is that the petitioner did not claim exemption and that he did not produce the invoices etc., so as to attract Section 7-A(2) - HELD THAT:- It is evident from a bare reading of Section 22(1), that the revision lies to this Court against the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the ground either that a question of law has not been decided or a question of law has been erroneously decided - In THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VERSUS ANDHRA CEMENTS LIMITED [2023 (2) TMI 1302 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], it was held that as per Section 22(1) of the AP GST Act, the Tax Revision Case lies to the High Court only on the question of law. Recently in the THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE VERSUS M/S. JAI SREE ENTERPRISES, VIJAYAWADA [2024 (5) TMI 720 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], this Court has held that the revision does not lie on a question of fact. It lies only if the question of law has either not been decided or has been erroneously decided. So there is no dispute on the proposition that under Section 22 of the AP GST Act, revision would not lie on a question of fact. In Eswara Oil Company [1983 (3) TMI 241 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], the STAT Tribunal therein found that the petitioner therein had not actually produced the bill said to have been falsely obtained nor did he file any declaration in Form – E. In view thereof it was held that the penalty under Section 7-A(2) could not be imposed. The said case is of no help to petitioner as in the present case the petitioner produced false bills and claimed exemption on part of the turnover as second sale - In South India Agencies [1988 (6) TMI 301 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], it was held that action, under Section 7-A(2) of the Act, 1957 has to be taken by the Assessing Authority “on detecting such issue or production”. The sub-section itself specifies the starting point for the action there under. It was observed that there could be no question of taking proceedings for levying penalty for issuing or producing a false bill, voucher, etc., unless it is first found that such thing had happened. It was also observed that the Analogy of Section 14 has no application at all. Levy of penalties under Section 14 of the Act and levy of penalty under Section 7-A of the Act are distinct proceedings based on distinct grounds. The revision has no force. The STAT has neither failed to decide a question of law nor has decided the question of law before it erroneously. No case for interference is made out. The Tax Revision Case is dismissed.
|