9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1981, for the years 1988-89,1989-90 and 1990-91. As per G.O. Ms. No. 111, dated March 6, 1982, the minimum turnover was fixed as Rs. 3,00,000 instead of Rs. 18,00,000 and 25 thousand per annum, for the purpose of taxation. It appears that the petitioner has submitted an application for classification as star hotel in 1989 and the same is pending with the respondents. In the meanwhile the petitioner had effected catering service ever since 1989, but the total and taxable turnover never reached the taxable minimum and hence the petitioner had not filed any return and paid any sales tax. The effecting of catering service in the petitioner-hotel, cannot be held to be sales in accordance with the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered under section 45(2)(cc) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and a show cause notice was also issued to the person in-charge at the place of business, who gave his consent for compounding the offence departmentally and paid Rs. 1,000 by way of cash. It is not correct to state that the compounding fee was collected from the petitioner compulsorily. Though the inspection was made on September 3, 1992, the petitioner issued the cheque for Rs. 37,577 only on the next day, i.e., on September 4, 1992 and no spot collection was made as alleged by the petitioner. 4.. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the compounding fee of Rs. 1,000 and a cheque for Rs. 37,577 were collected from the petitioner's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n informed the 2nd respondent that the account books were with the accountant who was not available and therefore the same could not be made available to the 2nd respondent. It is also further seen that the sales turnover for the first five months during the assessment year 1992-93 was Rs. 6,26,275, i.e., from April to August 1992. Though it is contended by the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) that the petitioner's representative one Mr. Ravikumar paid the compounding fee of Rs. 1,000 voluntarily and a cheque for Rs. 37,577 also on the next day, the letters dated September 4, 1992, September 5, 1992 and September 7, 1992 by the petitioner to the respondents would clearly show that there was some protest by the petitioner in paying the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uming that there is any violation of non-filing of the returns. It may be that the petitioner had not filed its returns in time and there may be liability on the part of the petitioner to pay sales tax. But that does not mean that the 2nd respondent can enter into the premises of the petitioner, that too in the absence of the proprietor of the petitionerhotel and collect the compounding fee without issuing any show cause notice for any violation of the Act by recording a statement from the person who was just present in the business premises of the petitioner. Therefore it is not open to the respondents to waive the procedure contemplated under the Act in such matters. In my view, the collection of the compounding fee of Rs. 1,000 by cash a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
