TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (6) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was allowed exemption by the District Industries Centre, Kottayam, in the sum of Rs. 55,231 from June 10, 1982. The assessee made additional investments. In submitting the annual returns for the three years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, the assessee claimed exemption from sales tax for the entire turnover conceded for the above three years. The total turnover disclosed, exemption claimed and the date of filing of return are as follows: Year Total turnover Exemption Taxable Date of filing disclosed claimed turnover of return 1983-84 5,33,562.20 5,33,562.20 Nil 26-4-1984 1984-85 5,98,650.54 5,98,650.54 Nil 30-4-1985 1985-86 6,26,189.43 6,26,189.43 Nil 30-4-1986 The Sales Tax Officer allowed exemption to the extent of 90 per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the revisions by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kottayam. Notice was given to the assessee to show cause why the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kottayam, should not be cancelled. The Board of Revenue stated that the assessee filed returns claiming exemption on the turnover supported by a forged document and the claim was baseless, since the statutory returns filed claiming exemption, on the strength of forged documents, is not permissible. Notwithstanding the objections of the assessee, the Board of Revenue, by its order dated February 26, 1990, cancelled the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kottayam, in the revisions and restored the orders of penalty passed by the assessing authority for the three years. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have wholly confused the issue by importing extraneous and irrelevant matters. Shortly stated, the assessee filed the returns for the year 1983-84 on April 26, 1984, for the year 1984-85 on April 30, 1985 and for the year 1985-86 on April 30, 1986. It simply claimed exemption. No particular material was relied on or reason stated therefor, then. In the revisional order, passed by the Board dated February 26, 1990, it is categorically stated that the assessee filed the certificate of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kottayam, dated October 27, 1986, at the time of assessments and claimed exemption. It was produced before the assessing authority in April, 1987. A further certificate enhancing the exemption limit, dated March 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ries Centre, Kottayam, filed was a forged document and it was produced by the managing partner of the firm in support of "the claim" for enhanced sales tax exemption and so the firm cannot retreat from the responsibility of filing an untrue or incorrect return. We are afraid that the approach and conclusion of the Board of Revenue has failed to give effect to the glaring and patent facts appearing in the case. The returns were filed, for the three years, long before April 30, 1986. No doubt, exemption was claimed for all the three years. But, it is common ground that in the returns the exemption was not claimed, by relying on the certificate of the District Industries Centre, Kottayam. The certificate of the General Manager of the District ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, we are unable to hold that the assessee committed an "offence" of submission of untrue or incorrect returns, by producing a forged document, for claiming exemption. The basic or fundamental factor necessary to attract section 45A(1)(d) of the Act is absent. Unless that minimal requirement is satisfied and the initial burden cast on the Revenue on that score is discharged, the assessee cannot be penalised under section 45A(1)(d) of the Act. In this view, the Board of Revenue was in error in holding that penalty is exigible for all the three years. Counsel for the Revenue was not able to point out that there was any independent investigation, either by the assessing authority or by the Board of Revenue, to show that apart from a certificat....