TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Upholds Deposit Requirement & Tax Liability, Dismisses Appeal</h1> The court upheld the decision requiring a deposit under Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal ... Suppression of purchase turnover - Claim of ITC - Held that:- The order was passed by the first appellate authority on 21.5.2010 against which the appeal had been filed before the Tribunal who decided the same on 24.9.2010. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished for filing this writ petition belatedly after the expiry of about three years. Further, the liability was fastened on the petitioner on account of suppressed purchase turn over detected at 76,36,401/- and after adding the profit element thereon, taxable turnover was determined at 83,08,404/-, on the basis of which the tax and penalty was determined and liability of 36,12,078/- was created. The Assessing Officer had noticed in his order that the counsel for the assessee had not sought to contest the case on merits but had only prayed for lenient view in penal action. - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Quashing of order requiring deposit under Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.2. Dismissal of appeal for non-deposit of 25% of the demand.3. Allegations of tax evasion and concealment of turnover.4. Delay in filing the writ petition challenging the orders.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the order requiring a deposit under Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal for non-deposit. The petitioner argued that the assessment for suppressed purchase turnover was wrongly added to the wrong assessment year, causing hardship. However, the State counsel supported the authorities' decisions. The court found no merit in the writ petition, noting the belated filing after three years and the liability imposed on the petitioner due to suppressed turnover and profit elements, resulting in a substantial tax and penalty demand. The Assessing Officer observed that the petitioner's counsel did not contest the case on merits but sought leniency in penal action.2. The petitioner's firm, engaged in the saw mill and wood resale business, faced allegations of tax evasion and concealment of turnover. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner issued a notice for framing assessment based on discrepancies in the VAT returns, leading to a search of the premises under Section 46 of the Act. Subsequently, a penalty and interest were imposed, and a significant demand was raised. The petitioner appealed the decision, but the appeal was dismissed for non-deposit of 25% of the demand amount. The Tribunal also upheld the dismissal, prompting the writ petition.3. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to provide evidence that tax-free timber purchases were direct from farmers and that market fees were accounted for. They alleged an attempt to evade tax, emphasizing the importance of complying with tax regulations. The petitioner argued that the concealment, if any, related to a different assessment year and objected to the requirement of deposit before the appeal hearing due to hardship. The court, however, upheld the authorities' actions, finding no grounds to favor the petitioner.4. The court highlighted the delayed filing of the writ petition, questioning the petitioner's reasons for the extended delay. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely legal actions and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delayed challenge. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the decisions of the appellate authorities and upholding the tax liability imposed on the petitioner for suppressed turnover and associated penalties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
