9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .08.2015 in STA.No.90/2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2.This tax case revision had been admitted on 27.01.2016 on the following substantial questions of law: "1.Whether Tribunal is correct in sustaining the penalty under sec.27(4)(1) of TNVAT Act, when the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s.27(3) of the Act? 2.Whether the Tribunal is right in remanding the case to decide the penalty in the guise of assessment falls u/s.27(2) oor 27(4) of TNVAT Act, is not sustainable? 3.Whether Tribunal is justified in remanding the penalty, when no findings have been given by the officer on "wilful suppression of turnover"? 4.Whether Tribunal is right in sustaining the penalty under Sect.16(2) of the TNGST Act, on the ground that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he TNVAT Act. The assessee filed an appeal challenging the said order before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)-III in APVAT.No.3/2009. The first appellate authority by order dated 02.03.2010 confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer rejecting the claim of input tax credit as being time barred in terms of Section 19(11) of the TNVAT Act. With regard to the levy of penalty under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, the first appellate authority noted that the revised return having been filed by the assessee voluntarily, it is not the case of non-disclosure and accordingly deleted the penalty. The revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. In the grounds of appeal, the revenue sought to sustain the penalty levied under Section 27(3) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee filed a revised return voluntarily, made a claim that input tax credit. This scheme was rejected on a technical ground that it is beyond the time limit stipulated under Section 19(11) of the TNVAT Act. There is no allegation that the assessee produced false bills, vouchers, declaration certificate or any other document with a view to support the claim. We say so because there is no such allegation in the assessment order. Furthermore, the claim made by the assessee was outrightly rejected by the Assessing Officer as time barred and therefore, there is no allegation that the assessee had wrongly availed input tax credit . Thus, both the contingencies contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the TNVAT Act do not stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
