TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich he could observe as between the return filed by the revision petitioner/assessee and the books of accounts. It is in those circumstances, the tax liability came to be enhanced to an extent of Rs. 3,92,288 along with surcharge. However, on being noticed that there was an excess payment of additional sales tax to the tune of Rs. 8,10,350 and the revision petitioner was entitled for refund, the assessing authority held that though penalty could be levied under section 12(3)(b) of the Act as well as section 22(2) of the Act, the proposal of levy of penalty was dropped. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commis sioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). While the appeal was pending, the appellate authority issued a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, we do not find any fault in the conclusions of the lower appellate authority as well as the Tribunal, as regards the penalty under section 22(2) of the Act, we are not in a position to affirm the same. As far as the penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Act, is concerned, the fact remains that the revision petitioner was not aggrieved against the tax liability imposed by the assessing authority based on certain omissions noted in the course of the assessment proceedings. In the assessing authority's order, it is specifically noted that at the time of checking accounts, the deduction claimed towards sales returns was in the order of Rs. 52,23,454 and as per the books, such deductions were only to an extent of Rs. 51,08,305. Similarly,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... surcharge for Rs. 1,80,848 and additional sales tax for Rs. 8,10,350 whereas the balance of tax works out to Rs. 3,92,288. (ii) The abnormal excess in surcharge and additional sales tax is due to the following reasons: (a) Following the Supreme Court's decision in Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer [1993] 90 STC 47, the Special Commissioner has clarified that rough castings are to be considered as 'general goods' liable to be assessed at eight per cent (+) surcharge at 15 per cent as falling under First Scheduled goods for the relevant period. The dealers were paying tax at eight per cent towards direct sales and also at three per cent tax plus 0.45 per cent surcharge plus 2.50 per cent additional sales tax against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment has no authority to see as to whether the excess collection was refunded to the customers as discussed by the Coimbatore STAT (AB) Shiv Narain v. Sales Tax Officer reported in [1972] 29 STC 150 (All) in the case of Ambika Press." A perusal of the said conclusion of the assessing authority discloses that the calculation of abnormal additional sales tax and surcharge was due to the specific directions issued by the Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The ultimate refund order also came to be made based on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court reported Vasantham Foundry's case [1995] 99 STC 87. That apart, the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner at page 14 discloses that even as on the date of passing of its orde....