9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenging the orders of assessment dated 12.01.2018 passed in respect of the assessment years 2007-2008, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015- 2016 and 2016-2017. 3. Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has admitted the tax liability and paid the same at the time of inspection by the Enforcement Officials insofar as assessment years 2007-2008, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and that the petitioner is not disputing such tax liability and however, the present writ petitions filed in respect of the assessment years 2007-2008, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 only against the imposition of penalty. She further contended that in respect of the assessment years 2014-2015, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as the contention raised against imposition of penalty is concerned, the learned Government Advocate submitted that while imposing penalty under Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the Authority need not record any satisfaction regarding willful nondisclosure of the turn over by the Assessee. 5. Heard both sides. 6. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner questions the imposition of penalty on the ground that the Assessing Officer has failed to record any reasons and his satisfaction that the escapement of tax was due to non-disclosure of the turn over by the Assessee. It is contended that in the absence of such finding, the penalty, as a matter of routine, cannot be imposed. It is true that the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under Section 27(4) of the said Act have to be held to be defective. This Court took such a view in the case of M/s.Saravana Super Market, Vandavasi Vs. CTO, Vandavasi, Tiruvannamali District [W.P.Nos. 35019 and 35020 of 2016 dated 01.12.2016]. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner in paying the tax even at the time of inspection prior to issuance of the show cause notices can very well be taken as a factor for not imposing penalty on the petitioner. That apart, the respondent has not recorded his satisfaction that escapement of tax was due to wilful non disclosure by the assessee." 7. Therefore, it is clear that the Assessing Officer, if chooses to impose penalty, should specifically record his satisfaction in the order of assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far. However, in respect of the mismatch issue, the matter has to go back to the Assessing Officer to re-consider the said issue once again in respect of the assessment years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, by following the guidelines/directions issued in JKM Graphics Solutions case. 9. Considering all these aspects, WP Nos.31554, 31555, 31560 & 31565 of 2018 are allowed and the impugned orders of assessment, imposing penalty are set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment only in respect of penalty, as the petitioner has admitted the tax liability in these cases. The petitioner is directed to furnish their reply to the notices of proposal within a period of two weeks from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
