TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut, this by itself will not obviate the duty of the assessee to file the return correctly. Obviously, ignorance of the law is no excuse. The amendment enhancing the rate of tax came into force by a public document. The petitioner has shown the rate of tax incorrectly, rendering the return an incorrect return. Therefore, we do not think that in the facts of this case we should interfere with the decision of the authority as confirmed by the two appellate authorities to impose penalty on the petitioner. But considering that the petitioner has paid the entire amount of tax with interest and settlement fee, the amount of penalty should be further reduced to ₹ 1,50,000 in place of what is ordered by the Tribunal. - O.T. Rev. No. 10 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under section 67 of the Act for filing incorrect monthly returns. By annexure A order, overruling the objection of the petitioner, penalty was imposed at ₹ 4,05,420 being double the amount of tax sought to be evaded. Appeal was unsuccessful. Annexure D is the order passed by the Tribunal upholding the decision to impose penalty, but reducing the penalty to the amount of tax sought to be evaded, that is, the penalty was reduced to ₹ 2,02,710. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is only on account of the facts as aforesaid, that is, e-filing was introduced for the first time on April 1, 2009 and it was done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut that no case has been established for interference in the revision. He would lay store by sections 22(9) and 79B. He would submit that revised return was filed by the petitioner after penalty proceedings were initiated and, therefore, there is a clear bar under the Act against their acceptance. As far as the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has paid settlement fee referred to in section 22(5), he would submit that it cannot bar the authority from proceeding under section 67 of the Act. He would point out that in this case the intelligence officer has proceeded under section 67(1)(d) and (j), that is, for filing incorrect return and for contravening the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Learned Government Pleader relies on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner has filed a return wherein he has shown the rate of tax at four per cent in respect of granites produced by him which clearly attracts tax at 12.5 per cent. from April 1, 2007. The year in question is 2009-10. Quite clearly the return filed by the petitioner showing the rate of tax at four per cent. in place of 12.5 per cent. can be said to be an incorrect return. There is misclassification of the rate. It is pertinent to note that the autho- Page No: 143 rity has found that for the previous year the petitioner has been classifying the very same goods as granite . But, for the year 2009-10, the petitioner has shown it as industrial inputs coming under the Third Schedule . The argument which is projected before us is that e-filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had filed a return and, therefore, the subsequent return can only be treated as a revised return. Therefore, in view of the supervening event, namely, issuance of the notice proposing penalty, the law sets a bar to the petitioner to filing revised return. As far as the provisions contained in section 22(5) is concerned, it may be true that the petitioner has paid the settlement fee and that was accepted also. But as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, it cannot be a bar for imposition of penalty under section 67. No express bar against imposing a penalty is also brought to our notice. As far as rules 35 and 24D(4) which we have referred to are concerned, it may be true that the officers ought to have been more diligent and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
