TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding can be discerned in the orders impugned in the writ petitions - We are living in pandemic times. But the respondent has shown considerable speed in concluding the entire proceedings. The pre-assessment notice was issued on 12.06.2020. The reply was given on 24.06.2020. The impugned order came to be passed on 29.06.2020. Even personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.(MD)Nos.7858, 7859 and 7860 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7330, 7331 and 7332 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. SWAMINATHAN For Petitioner: M/s. Aparana Nandakumar (in all petitions) For Respondent: Mrs. J. Padmavathi Devi (in all petitions) Special Government Pleader * * * COMMON ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. Though there are three writ petitions and the assessment years are different, the issue raised in all the writ petitions is one and the same. For the assessment year 2004-05, two assessment orders had been passed and for the assessment year 2005-06, yet another assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.Amount paid at the time of inspection ₹ 85,328/- 3.Penalty @ 150% --- ₹ 1,27,992 Balance to be paid Rs. -Nil- ₹ 1,27,992/- Details Turnover Tax @ 10% Penalty @ 150% Taxable turnover assessed to tax penalty levied ₹ 3,46,646/- ₹ 34,665/- --- Amount of Tax levied for the year 2004-05 ₹ 34,665/- ₹ 51,997/- Amount paid at the time of Inspection ₹ 34,665/- Rs. -Nil- Balance payable (-) Rs. -Nil- ₹ 51,997/- Details Turnover Tax Penalty Taxable turnover assessed to tax penalty levied ₹ 4,03,929/- at 20% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he dissolution of such firm or partition of such family, recovery of tax from third parties, reviews, references, refunds rebates, penalties, charging or payment of interest, inspection of the premises of transporters, goods/vehicles, business premises, search of the residential accommodation, seizure and confiscation of unaccounted for scheduled goods, seizure of documents, compounding of offences and treatment of documents furnished by a dealer as confidential, shall apply accordingly. 2. All the provisions relating to offences, interest and penalties including provisions relating to penalties in lieu of prosecution for an offence or in addition to the penalties or punishment for an offence of the General Sales Tax Act shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to the assessment, re-assessment determination of the value or the fair market price of goods, collection and enforcement of payment of any tax required to be collected under this Act, or in relation to any process connected with such assessment, reassessment, collection or enforcement of payment as if the tax under this Act were a tax under the General Sales Tax Act... ....Section 12(3). In add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition. [Provided further that no penalty under this sub-section or the interest under sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act, shall be imposed on the oil companies as explained in the Explanation-II of the Eleventh Schedule if the difference of tax due as per accounts and the tax paid as per the returns is less than five per cent and revised return is filed along with the difference of tax due within a period of three months from the due date for filing the monthly return] 9. It is not the case of the department that the petitioner is a regular importer of these goods or that the petitioner had been trading in them. Therefore, non-filing of returns may not really mutter much in a case of this nature. It is true that there was omission on the part of the petitioner in making a declaration at the relevant point of time. But then, the fact remains that immediately after it was pointed out, the petitioner had promptly remitted the entry tax in question. The petitioner had not even challenged the stand of the respondent. 10. In fact, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would draw my attention to the notification No.II(2)/ct/568(f-4)/2002-G.O.No.81, dated 01.07.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
