2003 (11) TMI 645 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalties upheld for incorrect tax returns despite arguments of lack of intent.

Bagsvig Versus Asst. Commissioner

The court upheld the imposition of penalties under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act on the appellant for filing incorrect and incomplete returns. Despite ... - Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for incorrect and incomplete returns.2. Interpretation of the requirement of best judgment assessment for imposing penalties.3. Comparison of penalties under Section 19(2) and Section 45A(1)(d) of the Act.Analysis:1. The appellant, an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, filed incorrect and incomplete returns for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The assessing authority imposed penalties amounting to Rs. 80,875/- and Rs. 2,16,790/- respectively. The appellant argued against the imposition of penalties citing lack of mens rea and the absence of a best judgment assessment. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision highlighting that penalties can only be levied if the assessment is made to the best judgment of the assessing authority. The Board of Revenue reduced the penalties by half for both years. The court examined the precedents and upheld the imposition of penalties, emphasizing the intentional suppression of turnover by the appellant.2. The court analyzed the requirement of a best judgment assessment for imposing penalties under Section 19(2) of the Act. It referred to a Division Bench decision that clarified the conditions necessary for penalty imposition, stating that a best judgment assessment is essential when any part of the turnover escapes assessment. However, in the case of penalty proceedings under Section 45A, the absence of a best judgment assessment does not preclude the imposition of penalties for submitting incorrect or untrue returns. The court emphasized that intentional suppression of turnover with mens rea warrants penalties under Section 45A(1)(d) without the necessity of a best judgment assessment.3. Section 45A(1)(d) of the Act allows for penalties if an untrue or incorrect return is submitted. The court found that the appellant intentionally suppressed turnover and submitted false returns initially. The revised return was filed only after the mistakes were pointed out by the assessing officer. The court rejected the appellant's argument that a best judgment assessment is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under Section 45A(1)(d), overturning a previous decision. It affirmed the imposition of penalties and upheld the reduction granted by the revisional authority. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the penalties were rightly imposed based on the intentional submission of incorrect returns by the appellant.