TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and bring the said products with the help of permits issued by the respondents under the provisions of the TVAT Act. Having noticed some anomalies, while scrutinizing the return furnished by the petitioners for the financial year 2008-09, the petitioners, as dealer, were asked by respondent No. 4 to appear before him with all books of account and to show cause, if any, as to why penal action, under the provisions of TVAT Act, shall not be taken against them. (ii) Pursuant to the notice, so issued, the petitioners' representative appeared before respondent No. 4 and produced the books of account. The return, submitted by the dealer, reflected that the dealer had made total purchase, during the financial year 2008-09, amounting to a sum of Rs. 2,13,94,256, but as per office record, the total purchases made by the dealer, during the said financial year, was, as noticed by respondent No. 4, a sum of Rs. 2,30,675. Thus, on noticing that the purchases, made by the dealer, as per the return filed, differed from the actual purchases made, to the extent of Rs. 16,40,419, an order was made, on June 5, 2009, by respondent No. 4 stating to the effect, inter alia, that the dealer had fail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ult, the amount of penalty, so imposed, being Rs. 2,72,207. (iv) Based on the order, dated June 5, 2009, aforementioned, a notice was issued, on June 6, 2009, by respondent No. 4 demanding payment of Rs. 2,72,207 as penalty. An appeal against the imposition of penalty was preferred by the petitioners as dealer. By order, dated November 5, 2009, passed in Appeal Case No. 174/CH-II/2009, respondent No. 2 has dismissed the appeal. While dismissing the appeal, respondent No. 2 observed, in the order, dated November 5, 2009, aforementioned, that the dealer had made, in the return, furnished for the year 2008-09, several incorrect entries as regard sales and purchases made inasmuch as the entries did not completely tally with the books of account produced and no revised return was submitted in this regard and, hence, the dealer had been correctly held to have evaded payment of tax and the order, dated June 5, 2009 imposing penalty on the dealer under section 75A, did not warrant interference. (v) Aggrieved by the penalty, so imposed, the petitioner has, now, put to challenge the assessment order, dated June 5, 2009, aforementioned, the demand notice, dated June 6, 2009, and the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so the petitioners had no scope to gain any benefit because of the fact that the petitioners had paid due tax payable by the petitioners month to month on the basis of actual sale as recorded in the books of accounts. I say that the fact is that sale was duly recorded in the books of accounts, due tax was paid by the petitioner against the monthly sale as per law and as such the Revenue did not lose anything or suffer anyway. I say that as a matter of fact the mistakes committed in the return did not affect the revenue in any way and as such there cannot be any intentional or deliberate suppression or concealment. I further say that the wrong entries in the returns either in respect of purchase or in respect of sale had no adverse effect so far as payment of due value added tax is concerned. I say that it is an admitted position that there were some mistakes in some returns but the accounts maintained by the petitioners having been correctly maintained and due tax having been paid the State did not suffer in any way." From a careful reading of the averments made in para 5 of the affidavitin-reply by the present petitioners, what, in brief, emerges to be the case of the petitioners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... months of May, 2008, August, 2008 and March, 2009, shown taxable liability at four per cent in respect of goods, which were, otherwise, liable to be taxed at 12.5 per cent. At the time of hearing before the assessing authority, it was, admittedly, pointed out, on behalf of the dealer, that there were some incorrect entries in the return filed by the dealer inasmuch as some of the goods, which were taxable at 12.5 per cent VAT, were shown to be taxable at four per cent. Notwithstanding such mistakes, what is, however, of paramount importance to note is that the tax was nevertheless paid on those items at 12.5 per cent. Thus, there was no loss of revenue suffered by the State. Neither the assessment order nor the appellate order indicates that there was loss of revenue suffered by the State. In fact, the assessment order as well as the appellate order do not show that any of the transactions of sales had been concealed, while maintaining the books of account or while paying the tax. The mistake, if any, was in the entries recorded in the return filed. What has been pointed out by the respondents, while imposing the penalty, is that the revised return was not filed correcting the m....