9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used the materials placed before this court. 2.These Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner / assessee assailing the order dated 29.01.2007 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, in CTSA No.283 of 2000 and CTA No.125 of 2000 respectively. 3.The brief facts of the case are as follows: i) The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of hosiery garments. For the assessment year 1999-2000, they had duly filed its return disclosing the total and taxable turnover. While so, the petitioner's place of business was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officials on 06.03.1999, during the course of which, it was revealed that the petitioner availed tax concession at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility to pay tax for the purchases made in respect of goods that were not covered under Form 'B' registration certificate issued by the second respondent. They disputed only the quantum of penalty levied by the authorities below. Therefore, this court is inclined to look into the orders of the authorities below to that extent alone. 5.It is seen that the assessing officer, after inspection and verification of records, found that the petitioner claimed concessional rate of CST at 4% by issuance of form 'C' declaration in respect of certain items that were not covered under the certificate of registration in form 'B' issued to them by the second respondent and thereby committed the offence as contemplated under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner has to be reduced by a minimum of Rs. 1,000/-. 8.The Tribunal after detailed analysis, came to the conclusion that there was mensrea on the part of the petitioner and hence, they were liable to pay penalty. At the same time, the Tribunal observed that the penalty levied by the assessing officer, was too excessive and therefore, the same was modified by restricting to 100% and not 150%. 9.Considering the fact that the petitioner made applications seeking amendment of the Form B registration certificate, which disclosed that they had made inter-state purchases on the bonafide impression that the disputed items would have been included in the Form B registration certificate issued by the second respondent; and subsequently, they had admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
