2015 (4) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nover that was not declared by the petitioner. By Ext.P1 order dated 29.07-2007, the 3rd respondent confirmed a penalty of Rs. 5,60,280/- on the petitioner. The said amount represented twice the amount of tax, that was determined by the 3rd respondent as being due on the turnover of Rs. 43,25,000/- that was not declared by the petitioner. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed a revision before the 2nd respondent which was dismissed by Ext.P3 order dated 18.01.2008. In a further revision filed before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent, by Ext.P5 order dated 15.07.2009, reduced the penalty amount by confining it to the actual amount of tax involved. While quantifying the reduced penalty, as equal to the act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....so Ext.P9 notice are impugned. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the stand taken is that the penalty proceedings against the petitioner were initiated pursuant to a finding that the petitioner had not disclosed a part of his turnover before the respondents. It is pointed out that the penalty that was confirmed by him by the 3rd respondent took into account the tax dues on the undeclared turnover, and twice the said amount of tax was imposed on him by way of penalty. It is contended that although, the 1st respondent in the second revision before him by the petitioner, reduced the penalty amount to the actual amount of tax that was sought to be evaded, the 1st respondent nevertheless adopted only th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent took into account the contention of the petitioner, with regard to the assessment order that was subsequently passed assessing him to tax at a lower amount of Rs. 1,42,425/- as against the figure of Rs. 2,80,140/- that was arrived at by the 3rd respondent in the penalty proceedings, and reduced the penalty imposed on the petitioner to the actual amount of tax involved, which he then took as the tax amount arrived at by the assessing authority. Thus, the petitioner was found liable to pay only an amount of Rs. 1,42,425/- by way of penalty pursuant to Ext.P5 order of the 1st respondent. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the 1st respondent ought to have taken only an amount of Rs. 24,288/- as the tax attributable to ....