9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the levy of penalty up to the year 1992-93 was held valid in law in the light of the decision reported in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) [2002] 125 STC 505 (Mad). Having considered the contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader, we are not able to accept the same and we are not inclined to entertain this revision as we do not find any question of law to be determined. The assessment year with which we are concerned relates to 1992-93. The respondent is a dealer in rolling shutters. The assessment for the said year was finally made on the total taxable turnover of Rs. 25,35,277. Before the assessing authority, the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per return, if the tax paid as per the return falls short of the tax assessed on final assessment by not more than five per cent; (ia) fifty per cent of the difference of the tax assessed and the tax paid as per return, if the tax paid as per the return falls short of the tax assessed on final assessment by more than five per cent but not more than fifteen per cent. (ii) seventy-five per cent of the difference of the tax assessed and the tax paid as per the return, if the tax paid as per the return falls short of the tax assessed on final assessment by more than fifteen per cent but not more than twenty-five per cent; (iii) one hundred per cent of the difference of the tax assessed and the tax paid as per return, if the tax paid as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the case on hand, a perusal of the order of the assessing authority dated December 29, 2000 does not disclose in any part of the order that the account particulars furnished by the respondent were either incorrect or incomplete. On the other hand, the assessment of tax came to be made by accepting the accounts particulars furnished by the respondent, while rejecting the stand of the respondent that the business activities of the respondent do not call for levy of any tax liability. In such circumstances, we are convinced that the levy of penalty as imposed by the assessing authority and as confirmed by the first appellate authority was wholly improper and was not in conformity with the stipulations contained in section 12(3)(b) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
