2014 (8) TMI 578 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Karnataka High Court Upholds Penalty for Post-Assessment Payment Error

The High Court of Karnataka upheld the penalty imposed under Section 12-B(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, correcting an error made by the ... Penalty imposed under Section 12-B(4) - Difference between tax paid and tax due - Held that:- amount was admittedly paid after the assessment order and was wrongly added to as advance tax to determine whether the difference of the amount is more than 15%. This error committed by the Appellate Authority was noticed by the Revisional Authority and in exercise of the powers under Section 22-A(1) of the Act corrected the order passed by the Appellate Authority - No reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Revisional Authority - decided against Assessee. Issues:1. Penalty imposed under Section 12-B(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.Analysis:The High Court of Karnataka heard an appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-1, Bangalore, regarding the imposition of a penalty under Section 12-B(4) of the Act. The Assessing Authority had assessed a tax liability of Rs. 1,27,220 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 64,000 at a gross profit rate of 10%. The Appellate Authority set aside the penalty but overlooked that a payment of Rs. 26,000 was made after the assessment date. The case focused solely on the penalty under Section 12-B(4) of the Act.Upon reviewing Section 12-B(4) of the Act, the Court noted that if the tax paid in advance by a dealer is less than the tax finally assessed by more than fifteen percent, a penalty is applicable. The Appellate Authority erred by including the post-assessment payment of Rs. 26,000 as an advance payment to determine the shortfall. The Revisional Authority, under Section 22-A(1) of the Act, corrected this error and upheld the penalty.The Court dismissed the appeal, citing a judgment from the Delhi High Court which was not applicable to the present case. The Delhi High Court's decision was based on a different scenario where the Assessing Officer did not impose a penalty during the assessment. In contrast, in the current case, the penalty was imposed under Section 12-B(4) of the Act. Therefore, the Delhi High Court's judgment did not support the appellant's case.Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Revisional Authority's order, finding no reason to interfere. The appeal was dismissed without costs.