TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 16(2) of the Act is not leviable, does not warrant any interference. - No penalty - Decided against the revenue. - Tax Case (Revision) No. 32 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 23-4-2015 - R.Sudhakar and K.B.K.Vasuki, JJ. For Petitioner : Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, Spl.G.P ORDER This Tax Case (Revision) is filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29.11.2002 made in C.T.S.A.No.427 of 2000 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Coimbatore. 2. The primary issue on which the assessment order was passed relates to the disallowance of the claim of deduction of sales tax collected by the dealer from the total turnover of the dealer. 3. The brief facts of the case are as fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment etc., for our perusal to ascertain the fact that what was collected as per the bills by the appellants represent not merely the price of the goods but also the tax payable on the sale and the quantum of tax payable. On further perusal of the assessment records, we could find only the bills relating to second sale items of goods (no tax bill) filed in the asst. records and not the taxable bill (First Sales). Further, the learned Authorised Representative has expressed his inability to produce the above material records so as to enable the Tribunal to verify and ascertain the fact that the amount shown in the bill is 'inclusive of tax'. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalisation under section 16(2) of the Act. Just because an assessment was created on the turnover impugned, it will not mean that the element of 'wilfulness' was attributable thereon attracting a penalisation u/s.16(2) of the TNGST Act. The would also contend that the imposition of penalty during all the years of assessments was time barred and that the penalties were imposed much after the completion of 5 years from the closure of financial year of assessment. Therefore, the penalisation was bound to be declared as that legally void, as held in the decision reported in 91 STC 112. 26. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner has rightly observed that the Assessing Officer would derive the turnover for assessment from out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years from the expiry of the order to which the assesssment relates. Thereis no dispute in this case that the assessment year in question is 1972-73. The penalty has been imposed by an order dated September 30, 1982. Though the relevant section underrwent a change in 1979, we are not concerned with that. As the section stood during the assessment year in question 1972-73 penalty should have been imposed before March 31, 1978. The fact that the notice has been issued on March 1, 1978, will not take away the rigour of the section by which the penalty ought to have been imposed. Though a question was taken before us whether the amendment which came into force on December 1, 1972, could be made applicable for the assessment year 1972-73, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
