TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee filed returns declaring a total taxable turnover of Rs. 5,05,85,244.40 and Rs. 1,28,86,740.08 claiming exemption on the sales turnover of wheat products amounting to Rs. 3,43,92,149.82. Similarly, for the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee filed return declaring Rs. 5,89,89,500.51 and Rs. 6,92,247.48 as the gross and total turnover claiming exemption on the sales tax turnover of wheat products amounting to Rs. 5,75,28,426.48. The assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings and issued notice for the assessment year 1991-92 stating that the return for the assessment year 1991-92 was incorrect and untrue. According to the assessee the wheat and wheat products are same and hence once the tax is collected, the assessee is not l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents, imposed the penalty of Rs. 62,00,000. Against that a revision was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Palakkad. The Deputy Commissioner reduced it to Rs. 7,31,800 for 1991-92 and Rs. 12,40,000 for 1992-93. Finally, the assessee took the matter before the Government. The Government dismissed the revision. It is against that the original petition was filed. 4.. The main argument of the learned counsel for the assessee is that return can be said to be untrue only if the assessee has filed the return knowingly that it is not correct. According to him, till the Supreme Court decision came in 1993, there are decisions to the effect that wheat and wheat products are same and the liability to pay tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not liable to pay tax on the same in view of the explanation to items 50 and 51 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act since the petitioner had remitted tax at the rate of 5 per cent on the sales of coconut oil and cake. The petitioner had also remitted the tax due on the taxable turnover. The liability to pay balance tax arose because of the order of forfeiting the excess collection. When the petitioner had remitted the tax due in respect of the taxable turnover, the fact that he had omitted to show the purchase turnover of copra in the taxable turnover is only a technical or a venial defect and no penalty is exigible". 5.. After going through the records and the decisions, we are satisfied that it is not a case where liability can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
