9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposition of penalty under Section 40(2) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short JVAT Act, 2005) by the Assessing Officer has been upheld. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent-authorities to refund an amount of Rs.17,35,000/- which has been realized by initiating recovery proceeding under Section 46(1) of the JVAT Act from the banker of the Petitioner-company. 2. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of works contract on behalf of various entities including Government Entities. For the period in dispute, Petitioner purchased pipes from outside the State of Jharkhand for an amount of Rs.1,55,69,332/- towards execution of works contract. The said inter- state purchases were made through valid road permits duly generated from the official website of State of Jharkhand. Petitioner filed its original quarterly return and, inadvertently, reflected interstate purchases as 'Nil'. On 09.01.2016 "Before assessment" proceeding under Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act was initiated against the Petitioner by Respondents on the sole ground that for the period in dispute, it filed quarterly returns by ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Commissioner Court, a revised assessment order was passed and revised GTO of Rs.6,17,61,159/- was duly accepted by the assessing officer. A tax liability of Rs.24,70,658/- was determined against the petitioner. Against the total turnover of Rs.6,17,61,159/-, VAT @ 4% amounting to Rs.24,70,446/- was already realized by Respondent being amount deducted from the bills of Petitioner in advance. In this regard, Form JVAT-400 being Certificate of Tax Recovery at Source was also issued to the Petitioner and after adjusting the said amount, a demand notice of Rs.212/- was issued to the petitioner by Respondent No. 3. 6. During the remand penalty proceeding, Petitioner brought to the notice of learned Appellate Court the fact that error which crept in while filing original quarterly return has been subsequently rectified by the Petitioner by filing revised returns and regular assessment proceedings have also been done and returns have been accepted. However, despite the said fact, on 28.11.2020, the Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner and imposition of penalty by the assessing officer was affirmed by the said appellate authority. On 22.11.2021, being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r hand respondents have disputed the revised quarterly return and levied penalty under Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act. Thus, levy of penalty under Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act is not justified. It is a settled preposition of law that revision of return can be allowed even after expiry of time period prescribed and time period prescribed for revision of returns is directory and not mandatory. In this context, Petitioner is placing reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Commercial Tax Officer Vs. C.R. Varghese reported in MANU/KE/1248/2018. [Relevant Para 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16] (ii) Super Plast Poly Products India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2018) SCC OnLine Ker 23311 [Relevant Para 7 to 10] (iii) Alwaye Sugar Agency Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assmnt) and Others reported in MANU/KE/1886/2017 [Relevant Para 1, 2 and 5] (iv) Aar Kay Agro Spring Industries Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2011) SCC OnLine MP 2389. (v) Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes and Others reported in MANU/DE/0256/2016 (Relevant para 2, 3, 10, 12, 17, 19] 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submits that under Sub-rule 7, if there is any incorrect information contained in the quarterly return, the same can be rectified within period of 3 months from the end of the respective tax period within reasons to be given and such returns shall be termed to be revised returns. Annual return is to be filed in Form JVAT 204. Thus, filing of quarterly returns is the mandate of law and the same can be revised within period of 3 months from the end of the tax period. In this case the returns are related to the period 1st April, 2005 to 30th September, 2015 and notice by the department was issued after a lapse of 3 months which is the statutory period for revising the return. He lastly submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that legislative intent is not required to be explored if the plain reading of the statute does not create any ambiguity. Proceeding under section 40(2) and proceeding under Section 35, 36 of the JVAT Act, 2005 are not overlapping proceeding; rather they are mutually exclusive proceedings. Even in the facts of the present case while passing the regular order of the assessment which has been passed in the month of March, 2020, no penalty was imposed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his turnover or incorrect particulars of his sales or purchases in the return furnished under sub- section (1) of Section 29; or otherwise, the prescribed authority shall, after giving such a dealer an opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing direct that he shall, in addition to any tax payable which is or may be assessed under Section 35 or 36 or 38, pay [by way of penalty a sum equal to thrice the amount of tax on the concealed turnover or on concealed or incorrect particulars of suppression or concealment or for furnishing incorrect particulars; on the amount of tax payable under the Act or on the suppressed turnover or on concealed turnover or for furnishing incorrect particulars. The interest shall be payable before the completion of the assessment and for determining the amount of interest payable, the prescribed authority shall quantify the amount of tax payable provisionally under this Act.'" "30. Return Defaults - ................. ................ (4) If a registered dealer or any other dealer required to furnish return under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 29; without any sufficient cause. (a) fails to comply with the requirements of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to a maximum of rupees twenty five-thousand in a year. 12. It further transpires from records that the purchases were made on the strength of Form SUGAM-G (Annexure-1 Series), and, therefore, no occasion arises for suppression of any purchases with an intent to evade the payment of tax otherwise. As a matter of fact, Petitioner would not have utilized SUGAM-G for the purchases of goods in question. Admittedly, the present dispute did not pertain to filing of incorrect return with intention to suppress or conceal purchases; rather the dispute pertains to filing of revised return belatedly. Thus, the imposition of penalty under Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act upon Petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law and if the justification of the Respondents in this regard is accepted then the provision of Section 30 more particularly; sub-section 4 would be rendered otiose. In the given facts and circumstances and in view of specific provision enshrined u/s 30(4) (d) of the Act, it is apparent that there is no deliberate act of evasion of tax which would be warranting imposition of penalty on the petitioner given the language used in Section 40(2) containing the penal provision. In fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
