1991 (7) TMI 333 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds Joint Commissioner's power under section 34, penalties justified, appellant's arguments dismissed.

The Court upheld the authority of the Joint Commissioner to exercise power under section 34 of the Act from December 1, 1980. It ruled that the penalty ... - Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner under section 34 of the Act.2. Levying penalty for the collection of tax on mustard.3. Levying penalty for the collection of surcharge.Jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner:The appellant challenged the order of the Joint Commissioner, questioning the authority under section 34 of the Act on the date of the order. The argument was based on the fact that the power was conferred by Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1982, effective from November 1, 1982. However, the Revenue argued that the Joint Commissioner had the power as per the Tamil Nadu Board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1980. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions and held that the Joint Commissioner had the authority to exercise power under section 34 of the Act from December 1, 1980, as specified in the notification issued under the Abolition Act.Levying Penalty for Collection of Tax on Mustard:The appellant contended that since the assessing officer approved the tax collection at 3½% on mustard in the assessment order, there was no basis for levying a penalty. Referring to a previous case, the appellant argued it was a mutual mistake situation. However, the Court distinguished the case cited by the appellant, stating that in this instance, the assessing authority later found the tax collection at 3½% to be illegal, as the correct rate was 3%. As the assessing authority rectified the mistake, the Court upheld the penalty under section 22(2) of the Act.Levying Penalty for Collection of Surcharge:The appellant argued against levying a penalty for the collection of surcharge, citing a previous judgment. The Court referred to a specific case where it was held that penalty for surcharge collection was authorized under section 22(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed this contention.In conclusion, the Court dismissed all arguments presented by the appellant, upholding the decision of the Joint Commissioner. The tax case appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.---