GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (10) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Levy of penalty under Section 27(3) - revision of assessment - TNVAT Act, 2006 - CST Act, 1956 - branded bakery products - Held that: - these revision of assessment under Section 27(1)(b) of the TNVAT has been done by the respondent to increase the rate of tax on the ground that the petitioner has been selling branded bakery products. The revision of the assessment is done under Section 27(2) of the Act, therefore levy of penalty under section 27(4) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aring to the petitioner, shall re-do the assessment in accordance with law - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No. 26494 of 2016 and WMP.No.22706 of 2016 - Dated:- 29-7-2016 - MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan For the Respondent : Mr.Cibhivishnu Addl. Government Pleader O R D E R Heard Mr. S. Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Cibhi Vishnu, learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice for the respondent an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essment passed under TNVAT Act for the year 2010-2011. (i) It is submitted that higher rate of tax was levied on the petitioner on the ground that they have sold branded bakery products. The assessing officer came to such conclusion solely for the reason that the petitioner did not produce proof to show that they have withdrawn their application filed before the Registry of Trade Marks. (ii) The second contention raised by the petitioner is that the impugned assessment is an order of revised ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e and merely referred to Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. 4. Nevertheless on a reading of the impugned order, it is evidently clear that the revision of assessment is under Section 27(1) (b) of the Act. If that be the case, then, it has to be seen whether penalty could be levied. 5. So far as the first issue is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner in their reply to the show cause notice and during the personal hearing stated that the application file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ven by the petitioner's counsel appearing before Trade Marks Registry is dated 29.06.2016, now, they are able to produce the proof from the Trade Marks Registry that their application has been withdrawn as early as on 03.10.2013, much prior to the pre-revision notice dated 27.01.2015, 18.09.2015 and 11.01.2016. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner may be granted an opportunity to produce the letter before the respondent with regard to avoid levy of penalty. It is submitted that sin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petitioner has been selling branded bakery products. Therefore, the levy of penalty is set aside. 9. With regard to the other aspect, namely, that the petitioner has withdrawn the application filed before the Trade Marks Registry and has got sufficient proof to show that the same has been withdrawn as early as on 03.10.2013, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to the petitioner. 10. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the responde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

all re-do the assessment, only with regard to increased rate of tax. 12. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before the Enforcement Wing Officials, the petitioner while giving a statement on 26.12.2011, stated the turnover for the year 2010-2011 at ₹ 1,02,00,700/- for the period from September 2010 to November 2011 and that they agreed to pay tax, and cheques were also issued towards the payment of tax. However, while issuing pre-revision notice, though .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version