TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- Inasmuch as the appeal filed by the petitioner in MTA No. 106 of 2008 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Madurai is pending as on date and since the same has not been disposed of till date, this court is of the considered view that it is not open to the second respondent/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer I, Virudhunagar, to issue the pre revisional notice dated April 24, 2008 claiming tax due on the wilful non-disclosure at ₹ 77,656 and the penalty proposed at 150 per cent as per section 16(2) of the Act at ₹ 1,16,484 and the same is per se illegal and invalid one. Resultantly, this court exercises its inherent power under writ jurisdiction and sets aside the pre-revision notice dated April 24, 2008 issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 2008, remanded the issue to the assessing officer for fresh disposal. The learned counsel for the petitioner brings it to the notice of this court that the petitioner has projected an appeal in MTA. No. 106 of 2008 on the file of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Madurai, wherein, the petitioner has disputed the tax of Rs. 77,656 (rupees seventy seven thousand six hundred and fifty six only) as well as the penalty of Rs. 92,568 (rupees ninety two thousand five hundred and sixty eight only) levied by the assessing officer. Conversely, it is the contention of the learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that MTA No. 106 of 2008 filed by the petitioner is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Madurai wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er things as follows: Penalty As had been rightly contended by the appellant the assessing authority has misquoted section 12(3) in the matter of levy of penalty as against section 16(2) of the TNGST Act,1959. However, the wrong quoting of section would not vitiate the proceedings ipso facto when he is adequately vested with power to levy of penalty under section 16(2) of the TNGST Act, 1959. The assessing authority had clearly established that the appellant had suppressed assessable turnover from the return filed under the TNGST Act, 1959. But for verification the suppression would not have come into light. Therefore, for the wilful non-disclosure of the assessable turnover in the return filed the assessing authority is well justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 77,656 -100% Penalty proposed at 150% as per section 16(2)(c) of the Act . . . Rs. 1,16,484 6. Objections, if any, against the above proposals may be filed in writing with relevant records before me in my office within office hours within thirty days (as directed in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Virudhunagar) of receipt of this notice, failing which order will be passed as proposed above. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER I Virudhunagar Inasmuch as the appeal filed by the petitioner in MTA No. 106 of 2008 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Madurai is pending as on date and since the same has not been dispo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
