TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State, has no merit - Revision dismissed. - Tax Case No.48 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2019 - Mr. Justice Dr.Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.Mohammed Shathiq Spl.Government Pleader ORDER DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J., The Revenue has filed the above Tax Case Revision aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2014 in T.A.No.206 of 2010, by which, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was pleaded to set aside the penalty imposition with the following reasons: 9. Admittedly it is not in dispute that there was a difference of tax between the tax assessed and tax paid as per return for the assessment year 2003-04 under the Central Sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner had not produced necessary Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for claiming concessional rate of tax. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the assessment holding that there was no recorded evidenced to establish that the transfer of goods was from Ranipet to Hyderabad and Hyderabad to Courtallam. The Tribunal also held that the penalty under the provisions of Sec.12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959 stood attracted since there was difference between the tax assessed and tax paid on a revision petition. Held that the explanation to Sec.12(3)(b) of the Act specified the turnover which merited to be excluded for the purpose of levy of penalty, one such being the turnover representing addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants was based on the details available in the books of accounts. The above case law relied on by the counsel for the appellant is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. Following the principles laid down in the case law referred to above to the fact of the case on the hand we are of the considered view that the order of the first appellate authority sustaining the levy of penalty is not in order and sustainable and hence we hereby hold that the order of the first appellant authority sustaining the levy of penalty is ordered to be set aside and not sustainable. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. In fine, the Tribunal appeal stands Allowed. 2. After he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
