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>Tax Penalty Order Overturned: Lack of Evidence Leads to Quashing and Remand for Fair Reassessment of Case</h1> <h3>M/s Maa Kamakhya Traders Versus Union Of India Thru. Secy. Minister of Finance, New Delhi And 3 Others</h3> M/s Maa Kamakhya Traders Versus Union Of India Thru. Secy. Minister of Finance, New Delhi And 3 Others - TMI Issues:Challenge to validity of order passed by Assessing Authority/Commercial Tax Officer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Imposition of penalty without establishing intention to evade tax. Discrepancy in decision-making process by Appellate Authority.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the validity of an order passed by the Assessing Authority/Commercial Tax Officer, directing a payment of Rs. 8,33,000 failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated. The order was based on a violation of Section 20 of I.G.S.T. Act and Rule 46(O), involving a discrepancy in the transportation of goods. Despite being given an opportunity to explain, a penalty was imposed simultaneously, rendering the explanation process meaningless. The petitioner's appeal against the punishment was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, which failed to establish the Assessee's intention to evade tax, a crucial element for penalty imposition.The Appellate Authority's decision was questioned due to a differing approach towards the petitioner and the department. While rejecting the petitioner's contention for lack of evidence regarding the distance of interception from the cold storage, the Appellate Authority affirmed the Assessing Officer's order without evidence of the petitioner's intention to evade tax. This inconsistent treatment was deemed unacceptable by the Court. The Court emphasized the need for a judicial and consistent approach by the Appellate Authority towards both the Assessee and the department.Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Appellate Authority's order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision. The Appellate Authority was instructed to reevaluate the case in accordance with the law, within three months of the order's production, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and addressing all submissions appropriately.
TaxTMI 