2012 (3) TMI 395 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court sets aside Appellate Tribunal decision, reinstates original penalty amount.

The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Versus Camellia Clothing Ltd.

The High Court allowed the Revision Petition, setting aside the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty to 10,000. The Court ... Penalty u/s 28-A(2) of the Act - job work - jurisdiction of Tribunal to deduce tax - when the vehicle carrying the goods were intercepted and the documents were demanded though the documents were produced, they did not pertain to the goods, which they were carrying - whether the violations of the provisions of Section 28-A(2) of the Act was bonafide and there was no intention on the part of the assesse to evade taxes legitimately? - Held that: - Though correct documents were produced at the time of reply to the SCN, the non-compliance of the statutory provision is established. There was a violation of Section 28A(2) - the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deduce the tax to ₹ 10, 000/- ignoring the aforesaid mandatory provision - the discretion vested is only in respect of imposition of penalty above two times the tax payable and less than the three times the tax payable. The said discretion cannot be exercised either to impose tax less than the two times or more than the three times. The Said order passed is in violation of the aforesaid mandatory statutory provision and accordingly, it cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside - petition allowed. Issues:1. Reduction of penalty by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.2. Interpretation of Section 28A(4) regarding minimum penalty.3. Discretion of the Court in imposing penalties.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case is the reduction of the penalty by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal from &8377; 1,81,462/- to &8377; 10,000/-. The Tribunal found no intention to evade taxes on the part of the assessee and relied on a previous judgment to impose a nominal penalty. The revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reduce the penalty below the prescribed minimum.2. The interpretation of Section 28A(4) was crucial in determining the minimum penalty to be imposed. The revenue contended that once a violation of Section 28A(2) is established, Section 28A(4) mandates a penalty of not less than double the tax leviable. The Court noted the amendment to the law, which removed the discretion to reduce penalties below the prescribed minimum. The Tribunal's reliance on a previous judgment was deemed inapplicable due to the legislative changes.3. The Court examined the discretion of the Court in imposing penalties and the circumstances under which penalties can be reduced. The assesse argued that the violation was a bona fide mistake with no intent to evade taxes, thus questioning the imposition of any penalty. However, the Court emphasized the statutory provisions mandating a minimum penalty and the limitations on the Court's discretion in imposing penalties.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Revision Petition, setting aside the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty to &8377; 10,000/-. The Court reinstated the original penalty amount of &8377; 1,81,462/- as imposed by the lower authorities, emphasizing the statutory provisions and limitations on reducing penalties below the prescribed minimum.