TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined by the assessee. The particular circumstances of this case is that the assessee had maintained true and correct books of account, but had deliberately filed incorrect returns for the reason, according to him, that he wanted to delay the payment of tax. This attitude of the petitioner or any other assessee can never be countenanced and condoned and requires to be deprecated in the strongest manner as is available. Penalty upheld - decided against assessee. - O. T. Revision Nos. 71, O. T. Revision Nos. 72 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2016 - Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan AND Devan Ramachandran JJ. R. Ramadas for the petitioner Mohammed Rafiq, Senior Government Pleader, for the respondent ORDER These revisions have been filed by the assessee, who is a registered dealer in cement on the rolls of the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Kozhikode. The assessee was subjected to an audit visit, wherein it was noticed that he had filed untrue and incorrect returns for the months of June to March 2012. It was seen that even though the books of account maintained by the assessee showed substantial purchases and sales, the assessee had filed the return showing nil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessing officer. The petitioner has raised several questions law. The gravamen of the questions in O. T. Rev. No. 71 of 2016, which is the revision filed against the order confirming assessment, is whether the assessing authority was justified in treating the accounted transactions as suppression; whether the assessing authority was justified in not allowing to revise the incorrect return filed by the assessee and whether the Tribunal was in error in not allowing input-tax credit as disclosed by the accounts maintained by the assessee. Apropos O. T. Rev. No. 72 of 2016, which is against the order of penalty imposed, the questions raised are essentially as to whether the order of penalty under section 67 of the Act was justified since the transactions were accounted in the books of account of the assessee and whether penalty was leviable when the turnover and transactions were disclosed in the account. We have carefully considered the impugned order of the Tribunal. We see, in paragraph 4 of the order, that the Tribunal has considered various assertions of the assessee and has found that the assessee having deliberately filed an untrue return showing the sales and purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 31 for the period from the due date of filing of return till the date of filing of such fresh return. On the receipt of such return by the assessing authority, the assessment for the return period shall, subject to the provisions of section 24 and section 25, be deemed to have been completed. As is perspicuous from the sub-section, a dealer will be able to file a fresh return only if the returns filed by him are rejected under sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Act reads as under: 22. (1) Where the return submitted under sub-section (1) of section 20 is not in the prescribed manner or not accompanied by the prescribed documents or with incorrect particulars, the assessing authority shall, after recording its reasons, reject the return with due notice to the dealer. It is obvious from the two sub-sections above of section 22 that it is only when the return submitted is not in the prescribed manner or not accompanied by the prescribed documents or it is submitted with incorrect particulars, causing the assessing authority to reject the return, that the assessee would obtain the opportunity to file a fresh return curing the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 22(2) was also completely untenable and without legal support. As regards the denial of input-tax credit, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of this court in Venus Marketing v. State of Kerala [2012] 51 VST 377 (Ker); [2011] 3 KLT SN 133, wherein this court has already declared that benefits like input-tax credit should be made available to the dealers con- forming to the statutory provisions in regard to maintenance of accounts, filing of returns and remittance of tax and eligibility for input-tax credit is not a matter to be considered when suppression is detected. This court has also cautioned that the Department should be slow to grant concessions and benefits like input-tax credit for dealers who are involved in tax evasion and benefit should be given strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules . The Tribunal, therefore, found that since the assessee had suppressed the turnover in its return, no benefit could be given to it in view of the affirmative findings of this court in Venus Marketing [2012] 51 VST 377 (Ker); [2011] 3 KLT SN 133. We see that the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction without error and fittingly and hence, the order im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
