1995 (4) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Namakkal, assessed the turnover of Rs. 1,12,664 on the basis of the book turnover. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following a decision of the Supreme Court reported as State of Madras v. S.G. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons [1971] 28 STC 700 has held that penalty in this case under section 16(2) of the Act cannot be levied. Aggrieved the department filed an enhancement petition before the Tribunal to restore the penalty levied by the assessing officer in the appeal filed by the assessee against certain other findings made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal held that enhancement petition is not entertainable since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelled the penalty levied, in its entirety. It is against that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee submitted that on merits, since the turnover is found in the books, penalty is not eligible under section 16(2) of the Act. It was further submitted that when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelled the penalty in its entirety, enhancement petition under section 16(3) of the Act is not entertainable by the Tribunal. The learned counsel supports this contention by relying upon the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Jakthi Veliyeetakam [1977] 40 STC 466 (Mad.). Therefore, both on merits as well as on jurisdiction, it was submitted that penalty under section 16(2) of the Act is not exigible in the case of the assessee. 4.. We have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel on both sides. It is the admitted fact that penalty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t from January 1, 1987. The present assessment year under consideration is 1977-78. According to the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, this amendment can have no application for the earlier assessment years. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the amendment brought out by Act 78 of 1986 is only a clarificatory in nature and therefore the amendment can be applicable even to the period earlier to the period January 1, 1987. We consider that there is sufficient force in the argument advanced by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) in this regard. In this connection, our attention was drawn to the decision in Bhavani Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1994] 94 STC 120 (Mad.) wherein while consideri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Joint Commissioner cannot interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, under the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, in such a case, unless the State is permitted to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the penalty in its entirety, such an order will remain unchallenged. In order to get over this anomaly later on Act No. 78 of 1986 was passed introducing an amendment with effect from January 1, 1987 inserting the expression "restore fully or partially, as the case may be". In view of the aforesaid reasonings, we hold that the enhancement petition filed by the State for restoration of penalty imposed by the assessing officer which was cancelled by the Appellate Assistan....