TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecessary - assessee was under the bonafide impression as regards the liability of the turnover claimed as exempted in the return, and that it is not the case of the Revenue that the said turnover is not shown in the return - turnover disclosed the return could not be lost sight of while considering the plea of the assessee as regards the bona fide claim to levy penalty - Following decision of CEMENT MARKETING CO., OF INDIA LTD v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [1979 (10) TMI 184 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee. - T.C.(R).No.941 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 9-6-2011 - Chitra Venkataraman And P. P. S. Janarathana Raja,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Sundareswaran For the Respondents : Mr. R. Sivaraman, Spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. In WMP.No. 24981 of 1992, an order of injunction was granted by this Court on 6.11.1992. The injunction granted was subsequently vacated in the year 1996 by reason of the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court. The assessee submits that immediately thereupon, it filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was also in turn rejected by the Apex Court. In the meantime, the assessment proceedings were completed and an order of assessment was passed on 29.11.1996. The assessee is stated to have paid the tax to the tune of Rs.32,583/- on 18.1.1997. Subsequently thereto, a notice was issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Act for the non disclosure of the turnover in the return and an order of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and confirmed the levy of penalty. In the circumstances, present revision by the assessee. 4. The facts as regards the assessment year, provision of law, injunction obtained before this Court on a challenge made to the amended act in the year 1992 and the order passed by this Court in the year 1996 are all not in dispute. So too the facts that the assessee had paid the tax pursuant to the assessment order is also not in dispute. The Revenue is also not disputing that the turnover in question, which was basis for levy of penalty was available in the books of accounts and was shown in the exempted column in the return filed by the assessee. The Revenue however took a plea that since the claim of exemption was not sustainable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
