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>High Court affirms Tribunal's decision on sales tax deduction & penalty levy under Section 16(2)</h1> <h3>State of Tamil Nadu Versus Steel Tube Traders and Agencies</h3> State of Tamil Nadu Versus Steel Tube Traders and Agencies - [2015] 86 VST 245 (Mad) Issues:1. Disallowance of claim of deduction of sales tax collected by the dealer from the total turnover.2. Levy of penalty under Section 16(2) of the Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of claim of deduction of sales tax collectedThe primary issue in this case revolved around the disallowance of the claim of deduction of sales tax collected by the dealer from the total turnover. The assessment order was passed based on the discrepancy observed during an inspection by Enforcement Wing Officials, where the sales consideration was shown as a consolidated sum without segregating the sales tax and surcharge collections separately. The Assessing Officer subsequently reopened the assessment and subjected the sales tax and surcharge collections to tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the assessment, which was further appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the assessment, emphasizing that the dealer failed to produce essential documents such as sale invoices, price lists, and sales registers to verify the tax element in the bills. As a result, the claim for deduction was disallowed due to the lack of supporting material.Issue 2: Levy of penalty under Section 16(2) of the ActRegarding the levy of penalty under Section 16(2) of the Act, the Tribunal concurred with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's view that there was no willful non-disclosure of turnover by the dealer. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and highlighted that penalties cannot be imposed if the turnover considered taxable by the department is available in the dealer's own books of accounts and was disclosed during assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that penalization under Section 16(2) requires a showing of willful non-disclosure, which was not present in this case. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that penalties imposed after the expiry of five years from the relevant assessment year are time-barred, citing specific legal provisions and case laws to support this conclusion. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision in this regard was upheld.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, confirming the disallowance of the claim for deduction of sales tax collected and dismissing the levy of penalty under Section 16(2) of the Act. The Court found no grounds for interference in the Tribunal's decision, as there was no willful non-disclosure of turnover by the dealer, and the penalty imposition was deemed time-barred. Consequently, the Tax Case (Revision) was dismissed with no costs awarded.
TaxTMI 