9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'TNGST Act'). 2. In respect of the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, assessments were framed based upon an inspection by the officials of the Enforcement Wing in the premises of the petitioner in February, 2016. The officials noticed at the time of inspection that there were lacunae in the monthly returns filed by the petitioner. Specifically, two defects were pointed out. The first related to difference in sales turnover as per invoices and the second related to difference in consideration on sales of old vehicles. 3. To elaborate, and in the interests of clarity, the petitioner had sold old vehicles for a profit, but had not remitted the difference in respect of the profit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that such levy was automatic. 7. It is as against the aforesaid conclusion, that the petitioner is before this Court. The petitioner relies upon a line of decisions of this Court commencing from the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Kathiresan Yarn Stores V. State of Tamil Nadu (42 STC 121) that has been followed by a subsequent Full Bench in the case of State of Tamil Nadu V. Golden Homes (102 VST 380). Per contra, learned Government Advocate relies upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Steels V. State of Tamil Nadu (2016 SCC on line Mad 2559). 8. Heard both learned counsel and perused the materials placed on record. The question of whether penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act is automati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee. 12. Furthermore, there was no finding recorded by the assessing authority specific to the position that the escapement of turnover was as a result of wilful non-disclosure or suppression by the assessee concerned. This would also vitiate the levy of penalty. 13. The aforesaid decision in the case of Kathiresan (supra) does not appear to have been cited before the Bench in the case of Vijay Steels (supra). To be noted, that the decision of the subsequent Full Bench in the case of Golden Homes (supra) has been rendered only on 14th September, 2016, after the decision in the case of Vijay Steels (supra), which is dated 03.02.2016. 14. It is an admitted position that none of the assessment orders or, for the matter, the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
