Untrue returns and suppressed turnover bar revised-return relief and input tax credit, while penalty for concealment is sustained.

Deliberate filing of an untrue return showing nil sales and purchases cannot attract the statutory facility for curing a defective return or claiming input tax credit as of right once suppression of turnover is established from the books and the assessee's own statement. The provision for annual return had no application to monthly returns, and the assessee had not revised the return within the prescribed time. Penalty for false returns and suppression was justified on the finding of deliberate concealment, though the turnover was directed to be freshly quantified after verification of books and documents.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an assessee who deliberately filed an untrue return showing nil sales and purchases could claim the benefit of filing a fresh or revised return and obtain input tax credit in the regular assessment; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed for filing false returns and suppressing turnover was liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether an assessee who deliberately filed an untrue return showing nil sales and purchases could claim the benefit of filing a fresh or revised return and obtain input tax credit in the regular assessment.

Analysis: The return was not rejected for a mere technical defect. The findings showed deliberate filing of false particulars to avoid tax, with suppression of turnover established from the books and the assessee's own statement. On that footing, the statutory facility of filing a fresh return after rejection of a defective return was unavailable. The provision relating to annual return had no application to monthly returns. As the assessee did not revise the return within the prescribed time and had filed incorrect returns knowingly, input tax credit could not be claimed as of right when suppression had been detected.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to revise the returns under the statutory scheme, and denial of input tax credit was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed for filing false returns and suppressing turnover was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The finding of deliberate suppression and filing of untrue returns justified the penalty proceedings. The appellate authority had already reduced the practical burden by directing verification of documents for quantification of the turnover for penalty purposes. No legal infirmity was found in the confirmation of penalty, and the assessee's challenge to the penalty did not merit interference.

Conclusion: The penalty was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were disposed of by granting limited relief only in relation to the assessment, by directing fresh quantification of the suppressed turnover after verification of books and documents on payment of costs, while the penalty order remained confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer who deliberately files an untrue return to evade tax cannot invoke the statutory facility for curing defective returns or claim input tax credit as of right once suppression is established; however, limited relief in quantification may still be moulded on the peculiar facts without affecting the confirmed penalty.

---