9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 36,035 towards fine and Rs. 4,000 for compounding the offence, totalling to Rs. 76,070 as well as the order dated January 1, 2000 passed by the second respondent, that is, the Deputy Commissioner (Tax on Luxuries), State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar. The petitioner, a private limited company, is running a hotel popularly known as "Hotel Panchsheel" at Baroda. By a show-cause notice dated August 27, 1999 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why tax to the tune of Rs. 86,484 should not be recovered for the grounds (in all eight in number), stated in the said showcause notice. In response to the show-cause notice, the petitioner filed its reply dealing with each of the grounds. The second responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that tax had accordingly been paid on the said amount. The second respondent held that as per rule 2 of the Rules, in case there was any increase or decrease in the tariff, it was necessary to inform the concerned officer. That the management of the hotel had, in relation to ground No. 5, charged lower rate of tariff and tried to conceal tax and that in respect of the present ground, tariff had been charged at a higher rate than allowed under form No. 2 and as such, had tried to evade payment of tax. That it was only upon the discrepancy being noticed that they had paid tax on the amount of tariff shown in the bill. He, therefore, did not accept the explanation of the petitioner. In relation to the seventh ground, it was found that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f twelve months as computed by the second respondent and accordingly assessed the tax payable at Rs. 36,035; reduced the penalty amount under section 7 of the Act to Rs. 36,035; and compounding charges to Rs. 4,000. Accordingly, the amount payable by the petitioner under the order passed by the second respondent was reduced from Rs. 2,26,210 to Rs. 76,070. approach and has reduced the assessed amount as well as amount of penalty and compounding charges. In the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the first respondent being based on concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the authorities below after appreciation of the evidence on record, does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers under article 226 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
