TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he levy of penalty is concerned, it is seen that the entire turnover has been culled out from the books of accounts and the petitioner has been called upon to furnish the details which the petitioner has promptly complied with - it has to be seen as to whether it is a case where penalty could have been imposed under Section 27(4) of the Act. There is no allegation that the petitioner has wilfully failed to disclose the assessable turnover or the conduct of the dealer was contemporaneous with an intent to develop the revenue or to somehow avoid payment of tax. Unless these ingredients are established, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. Therefore, to that extent, this Court is fully convinced that the levy of penalty under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not successful before the respondent/Commercial Tax Officer. 3.The background facts which are required to be reiterated that the petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.Nos.15535 to 15538 of 2016. In the said writ petitions, the petitioner challenged the assessment orders passed by the respondent for the very same assessment years viz., 2010-2011 to 2013-2014. The only point which was agitated before the Writ Court was with regard to the reversal of Input Tax Credit for stock transfer covered by Form F. With regard to the other issues, the petitioner stated that they will file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court took into consideration the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 by notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds were furnished, issued notice dated 24.04.2017. I have accepting the fact that the petitioner was furnished details and on verification, he has noticed certain issues and therefore, directed the petitioner to furnish the details in seven separate statements. In fact, the respondent has in the said notice clearly given the manner in which the statement has to be drawn. This effort of the respondent requires to be appreciated. The petitioner, on receipt of the final notice dated 24.04.2017, has produced the corrected statement in the format, as directed to be given by the respondent. Having made such an exercise, in the considered view of this Court, the respondent could have taken little more effort to call the dealer for any clarificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receding paragraphs after the earlier order in W.P.Nos.15535 to 15538of 2016 dated 28.06.2016, the reversal of ITC as well as the imposition of penalty had been set aside and the matter remanded to the respondent. Therefore, if the respondent opined that the penalty should be levied, there should have been a proposal to the said effect. Be that as it may, it has to be seen as to whether it is a case where penalty could have been imposed under Section 27(4) of the Act. There is no allegation that the petitioner has wilfully failed to disclose the assessable turnover or the conduct of the dealer was contemporaneous with an intent to develop the revenue or to somehow avoid payment of tax. Unless these ingredients are established, the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
