TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes penalty without fraud or wilful neglect under VAT Act</h1> <h3>Delta Lubricants Versus Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada</h3> The court held that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was without jurisdiction as it was not based on fraud or wilful neglect, as required by the ... - Issues:Challenge to assessment order and notice issued in form VAT 305; Alleged under-declared tax and penalty; Jurisdiction of penalty imposition; Simultaneous assessment and penalty proceedings.Analysis:The case involved a challenge to an assessment order and a notice issued in form VAT 305. The petitioner claimed to have submitted monthly returns and paid the tax due after claiming input tax credit. The respondent issued a notice of assessment proposing to assess the petitioner for under-declared tax and levy a penalty equivalent to 100% of the alleged under-declared tax amount. The main issues raised were factual, concerning whether tax was due, under-valuation, and payment of deficit tax. The court noted that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy by way of appeal regarding the assessment.Regarding the penalty imposition, the court referred to section 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which requires penalty imposition only in cases of fraud or wilful neglect. The notice in form VAT 305A demanded tax including a penalty without establishing fraud or wilful neglect. The court held that the penalty imposed was without jurisdiction. The respondent argued that assessment and penalty must come together as prescribed in form VAT 305, but the court emphasized that penalty of 100% cannot be imposed without proving fraud or wilful neglect and providing a reasonable opportunity for the dealer to be heard.The court cited a Full Bench judgment to discuss simultaneous assessment and penalty proceedings. While acknowledging the possibility of simultaneous levy, the court cautioned against it as it may deny the dealer the opportunity to use assessment findings to defend against the penalty. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition to quash the penalty imposed but permitted the respondent to initiate penalty proceedings if advised. The petitioner was advised to seek alternate remedies available in law regarding the assessment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
