9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondents : Mr. Manoharan Sundaram, AGP ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Chitra Venkataraman,J.) This Tax Case Revision, filed at the instance of the assessee, was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Tribunal is well in the facts and circumstances of the case in not considering the fact that the levy of penalty under Section 12(3)(c) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .11.1998 on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the monthly returns and paid the tax due thereon. Considering the fact that the returns were filed only on 17.7.1997 and paid the tax, then penalty for the period from 20.5.1996 to 29.7.1997 was calculated at 2%, thus proposing to levy penalty at Rs.31,266/-. 3. The assessee resisted the same by contending that the calculation of number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, which confirmed the order of the Assesing Authority levying penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come before this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that when the assessment is made based on the books of accounts and the returns filed, levy of penalty under Section 12(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act is arbitrary and illegal. He further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have also perused the files. Going by the admitted fact that when the assessee had opted for annual returns to be filed as prescribed under Rule 15, the number of days delay, hence, has to be calculated as per Rule 15 only. When that being the case, the delay of 74 days fixed in the original order of assessment dated 12.11.1997 taking the due date as 02.5.1997 and the date of filing as 15.5.1997 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
