1991 (4) TMI 408 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court dismisses tax revision, upholds Tribunal decision on penalty imposition under section 12(3) of Sales Tax Act.

State of Tamil Nadu Versus R. Jeyaraj

The High Court of Madras dismissed the tax revision case, upholding the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu ... - Issues:1. Levy of penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the suppression of turnover.2. Interpretation of the provisions of section 12(3) regarding the imposition of penalty during best judgment assessments.3. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority to levy penalty in a separate proceeding after the assessment order.Detailed Analysis:The High Court of Madras heard a tax revision case where the Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, related to the suppression of turnover amounting to Rs. 30,062. The assessee, engaged in the business of coconut oil and oil cake, had faced a best judgment assessment due to the non-disclosure of turnover concerning the purchase of copra. The assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings in 1978 for the suppression of turnover, which had been subject to best judgment assessment earlier. The Tribunal set aside the penalty levy, stating that not every best judgment assessment automatically leads to penalty imposition without concrete evidence of suppression.The Government Advocate relied on a previous decision to argue that willful non-disclosure justifies penalty imposition under section 12(3) of the Act. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel referenced the Tribunal's reasoning and another court decision to assert that penalty imposition in this case was without jurisdiction. The court referred to a prior judgment to clarify that penalties in best judgment assessments should be imposed during the assessment process and not in separate proceedings afterward. It emphasized that if an assessing authority does not mention penalty imposition during assessment, a subsequent authority cannot independently levy it later. In this case, the notice issued in 1978 solely aimed at imposing a penalty, which was beyond the permissible time frame under the law.Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the tax revision case, upholding the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty. The court concluded that the penalty levy in this case was not justified due to the procedural irregularity of imposing it in a separate proceeding after the assessment order. As a result, the case was dismissed without any costs being awarded.