9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner had failed to submit monthly returns and to make payment of the tax due with respect to the period from 4/2005 to 1/2006, 11/2006 and 12/2006. Accordingly penalty under Section 45A was imposed for the offences of non-filing of return and non-payment of tax due, to the tune of double the amount of tax due for the respective months. The petitioner had challenged the orders imposing penalty in revision before the 2nd respondent. It was mainly contended that the non-filing of return was due to various circumstances prevailed which had prevented the petitioner from filing the return within the due dates. It was further contended that the non-filing of returns was only a technical offence for which no penalty can be imposed on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as per Exts.P12 to P21 it is brought to notice of this court that during the relevant period the establishment was attached and taken over possession by the Kerala Financial Corporation and it was released only subsequently, on the basis of judgment passed by this court. It is contended that the Bar Hotel in question remains closed for considerable period during the relevant time. According to learned counsel for the petitioner those factors only led to the situation of non-filing of returns and non-payment of tax due. Therefore it is contended that the petitioner was virtually prevented from filing returns and from paying tax. It is also contended that the petitioner was facing acute financial stringency during the relevant time which ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical offence and imposition of penalty at twice the amount of tax is sustainable. 7. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this court in T.R. Ramachandran V. Sales Tax officer (1997) 106 STC 413 (Ker.). In the said ruling this court observed that, the assessee's explanation that he was disabled from filing return and from remitting the tax due to certain specific circumstances, is not a valid excuse for not paying the collected tax. But on the facts of the case this court upheld the view taken by the authorities concerned in fixing the quantum of penalty considering the gravity of offence and other circumstances.. 8. Learned Government Pleader had placed reliance on the decision in Zakir Hussain V. Additional Sales Tax offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period and the petitioner was not having possession of the establishment due to the attachment effected. It is pertinent to note that the first revisional authority had already taken a lenient view and reduced the quantum of penalty to equal the amount of tax. I do not think any further reduction of the quantum is warranted. However, considering the fact that the order imposing penalty was challenged all along and also considering the fact that this writ petition was pending adjudication before this court from the year 2008 onwards, I am inclined to order waiver of penal interest on the amount of penalty finalised, if the petitioner remits the amount of penalty determined by the assessing authority within a period of 3 months from the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
