1991 (4) TMI 432 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Upholds Jurisdiction for Penalties under Tax Act Amendment

Arul Jothi Brick Works Versus State of Tamil Nadu

The court upheld the jurisdiction of a succeeding officer to levy penalties under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959, ... - Issues:1. Jurisdiction of a succeeding officer to levy penalty under section 12(3) of the Act.2. Applicability of the amendment to section 12(3) by the amending Act 3 of 1972.3. Interpretation of relevant case law in light of the amended provision.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to an assessee's tax revision against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessing authority had initially determined a turnover based on best judgment assessment for a specific year. Subsequently, a succeeding officer proposed to levy a penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959, based on the suppressed sales that came to light during inspections. The primary issue raised was whether the succeeding officer had the jurisdiction to levy a penalty through a separate order under section 12(3) when the original assessment order did not include a penalty.2. The court analyzed the amendment to section 12(3) by Act 3 of 1972, which empowered the assessing officer to levy a penalty through a separate order. The court emphasized that the legislative amendment removed any prohibition on a succeeding officer from imposing a penalty when deemed necessary. The judgment clarified that the case law cited by the petitioner, State of Madras v. Ramulu Naidu [1965] 16 STC 865 (Mad.), was rendered under the pre-amendment provisions of section 12(3) and was not applicable to the current legal framework post-amendment.3. The court referred to a relevant case, Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) v. Govardhana Engineering Industries [1986] 63 STC 109, where a similar issue regarding the jurisdiction of a succeeding officer to levy a penalty was considered. In that case, it was held that the succeeding officer could indeed impose a penalty for suppressed turnover even if the original assessing officer did not do so. The court found this precedent applicable to the present case and upheld the levy of the penalty by the succeeding officer. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision, stating that it lacked merit, and no costs were awarded.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the authority of a succeeding officer to levy penalties under section 12(3) of the Act, post-amendment, and underscores the applicability of relevant case law in interpreting such provisions.