1995 (12) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gh the notice is served upon the respondent, it has chosen to remain absent and unrepresented and sent a registered letter dated November 9, 1995 to the Registrar of the High Court submitting a written submission and further stating that it is not availing the personal representation through a counsel. The written submissions submitted by the respondent are also taken into consideration. 3.. In this revision petition, the petitioner-State has challenged the correctness of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, in so far as it relates to the deletion of penalty levied under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act and reduction of the penalty to 50 per cent levied under section 12(3) of the Act. The assessing o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,497 as disclosed from the records. Such large scale suppression could not be said to be without any wilful act on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the appellate authority taking a lenient view of the matter restricted the penalty under section 12(3) of the Act to Rs. 8,784 being equal to the tax due on the suppression of Rs. 1,75,686. The assessing officer also has given reasons for imposing penalty under section 12(3) of the Act and has held in categorical terms that there was wilful non-disclosure by the assessee in the returns of the sales transactions. There is no doubt that the penalty under section 12(3) of the Act as it stood at the relevant point of time will be leviable only when the assessee has wilfully failed to disclose th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... included the sale transactions in question in the turnover. On the contrary, it did not include the turnover regarding the sale of synthetic gems and it was only noticed by the inspecting officer. Such being the position, the appellate authority was justified in confirming the penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act and reducing it to 50 per cent, whereas the assessing officer had levied penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act at 150 per cent. Thus the Tribunal has proceeded on a wrong assumption that the assessee had included the turnover relating to sale of synthetic gems in the returns and claimed exemption, which was not a fact. The assessee becomes liable for the penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act, if the return submi....