2014 (3) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in respect of the sale of entry 7(a) and 7(b) of Second Schedule of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was not concluded, the imposition of penalty under Section 12(5)(iii) is legally sustainable?" 2. The assessment herein relates to the assessment year 1992-93. The petitioner is a dealer in hides and skins. The said assessee claimed that it purchased raw skins from the other states and tanned it and sold the same as finished leather inside the State. In the circumstances, it claimed that finished leather and raw skin being one and the same commodity, the said turnover was exempted from payment of tax. 3. It is seen from the records placed before this Court that the assessee filed a writ petition in WP.No. 17491 of 1992 before this Court c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee had shown the said turnover in question under the column of exemption and that the assessee had filed the writ petition before this Court questioning the validity of the liability and on coming to know about the decision of this Court in rejecting the plea of the assessee, the assessee had also paid the tax, the first Appellate Authority set aside the levy of penalty, thereby allowed the appeal. As against the same, the Revenue came on appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal challenging the cancellation of levy of penalty. In the course of appeal filed before the Tribunal, the assessee took a plea on jurisdiction of the officer to levy penalty by reason of limitation as provided under Section 12(5)(iii) of the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt is made on the basis of the books of accounts, for invoking the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Act to levy penalty, the element of deliberateness, wilfulness or blameworthy conduct on the part of the assessee may not be necessary. The bona fides of the assessee have to be gone into before imposing penalty. In so holding, this Court held that the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in CEMENT MARKETING CO., OF INDIA LTD v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [1980] 45 STC 197 have to be kept in mind by the Assessing Authority. 6. Applying the said decision to the admitted facts herein, given the fact that the assessee was under the bonafide impression as regards the liability of the turnover claimed as exempted in the return, and th....