9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore-18 in C.T.S.A.Nos.15 and 16 of 2021. 2. The dispute in these cases relate to assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. It appears that the petitioner had registered itself as an assessee under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 but has failed to file return in time. The Department inspected the premises of the petitioner on 15.07.2016 where they found that out of 72 machineries which were imported by the petitioner from China, 30 were used for their own purposes and the remaining 42 were sold to third parties during these assessment years. The petitioner purportedly filed a return on 31.07.2016 and thereafter paid the tax on the sales effected by the petitioner dealer during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Waving Mills reported in (2009) 13 SCC 448 and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of the M/s.Gurusamy Agencies Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in W.A.No.1237 of 2017. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent and have also perused the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. 6. The petitioner cannot escape from the penal consequence under Section 22(5) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 merely because the tax was paid after inspection and before the assessment order dated 29.12.2017 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discretion to either drop penalty where tax has been evaded. Even if no best judgment has been made, the tax payable by the petitioner after evasion was noticed during inspection has been admitted. The fact remains that the tax was not paid in time and tax has been paid pursuant to the inspection on 15.07.2016. The return that was purportedly filed on 31.07.2016 is not a return recognized under the provisions of TNVAT Rules, 2007. It was not return in the eye of law. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of Section 16 of TNGST Act, 1959 which was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Sun Fabi Techs Case cited supra cannot be applied to the facts of these cases as the provisions are different. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
