TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- In the said decision, the Hon ble Supreme Court at the outset observed that the imposition of penalty in that case was not justified on the facts of the case. Therein, a provision for payment of gratuity was claimed as deduction, in the statement filed along with the return; which also contained a further statement that the same is not allowable. The Assessing Officer saddled the assessee with penalty at 300% of the tax sought to be evaded by furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Hon ble Supreme Court directed the assessee to file an affidavit and based on the explanation offered found the mistake committed to be silly mistake which also stood acknowledged by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Assessing Officer with the necessary evidence to substantiate the input tax credit; as provided in the Circular. In the present case, there is no proceeding of scrutiny or appeal pending and there cannot be any revision of the input tax credit since the allegation of excess claim has been admitted and differential amount paid by the assessee. The penalty levied was proper and a civil liability, attracted on the failure to pay the tax due, on a wrong claim of input tax credit. There are absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition, the same is dismissed. - HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Keshri, Advocate For the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, (2012) 11 SCC 316 to urge that no penalty would be leviable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Government Advocate contended that it was only in the scrutiny of the return, for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018, that the discrepancies were noticed, on account of which notice was issued as per Annexure-A. The petitioner paid the differential amount of tax, but did not pay the interest due, despite a notice issued under Section 73(1) of the BGST Act. It was hence the Assessing Officer passed the order imposing interest and penalty to the tune of Rs. 3,51,532/-. It is also pointed out that there was elev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Admittedly, the assessee paid the difference of input credit tax amount coming to Rs. 4,71,290/- as on 08.12.2021 evidenced by Annexure-3. The assessee has made a laconic statement in the memorandum that it was under the coercion of the respondent assessing authority that the amount of differential tax was paid up. We are not prepared to reckon such coercion having been employed, especially when the contention is raised after two years in a writ petition filed. Even the appeal was delayed by eleven months. 7. As far as the delay occurred in filing the appeal, the Hon ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation due to the pandemic situation saved limitation between 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2023 titled as Angel Engicon Private Limited v. The State of Bihar disposed of on 16.02.2023 ). 10. Now, we come to the interest and penalty levied on the petitioner and the applicability of the decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd.(supra). 11. In the cited decision, the Hon ble Supreme Court at the outset observed that the imposition of penalty in that case was not justified on the facts of the case. Therein, a provision for payment of gratuity was claimed as deduction, in the statement filed along with the return; which also contained a further statement that the same is not allowable. The Assessing Officer saddled the assessee with penalty at 300% of the tax sought to be evaded by furnishing inaccurate parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer. The said procedure does not apply to the petitioner-assessee since he has admitted the allegation of excess claim and remitted the amounts due by way of tax. The petitioner - assessee has also not approached the Assessing Officer with the necessary evidence to substantiate the input tax credit; as provided in the Circular. We also have to notice paragraph-6 of the Circular which specifically indicates that the instructions in that Circular will only apply to the ongoing proceedings in scrutiny/audit/investigation, etc. for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and not to the completed proceedings. The instructions would also apply in the respective years with respect to any adjudication or appeal proceedings, pending. In the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
