TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Sales Tax Act (for short, "the Act"). Brief facts, as emerging on the face of the record of the case, are that a survey was conducted by the officer of the petitioner-Department on May 15, 2007 at the business premises of the respondent. On enquiry, it was noticed that the respondent had sold "Naswar" (snuff) amounting to ₹ 6,83,063 on inter-State basis during the period from April 1, 2007 to April 3, 2007. However, neither Central sales tax (CST) was collected, nor deposited. It was observed by the assessing officer that by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007, the tobacco products have been deleted from the category of declared goods/items under the Central Sales Tax Act and on the said basis, the Gov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansactions are duly recorded and therefore, even otherwise, penalty should not be imposed. However, the petitioner being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent, not only levied tax but also imposed a penalty of ₹ 27,311 under section 25(1) of the Act and further increased it double of the penalty amount, amounting to ₹ 54,622 under section 61 of the Act, vide order dated June 22, 2007. Being dissatisfied with the said penalty order dated June 22, 2007, the matter was carried before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer (for short, "the DC (A)") and the facts were reiterated before the learned DC (A). However, the learned DC (A) was not satisfied with the explanation furnished and has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imposed. After considering the submissions of the parties, the Tax Board while partly allowing the appeal of respondent, deleted the penalty of ₹ 54,680 under section 61 of the Act vide order impugned dated March 27, 2012, against which the petitioner- Department has preferred the instant revision petition. Ms. Tanvi Sahai, counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. B. Mathur, arguing counsel for the petitioner, submitted that penalty was rightly imposed by the petitioner and was subsequently sustained by the learned DC (A) also and the learned Tax Board was unjustified in deleting the same. She submitted that the respondent is a very reputed private limited company, represented by renowned advocates and the amendment made in law must ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....well before imposition of penalty and, therefore, there was no ulterior motive of the respondent in not paying the due tax. Tax laws are complex and complicated and the amendments in law are so frequent that even the practitioners regularly practising in such laws, come to know about the amendments later on and the respondent-assessee cannot be penalised or faulted with imposition of concealment of penalty in a case like this. Something more has to be proved by the petitioner-Department while imposing penalty for concealment. It is also apparent, on perusal of facts, that all the transactions have been duly recorded in the books of accounts and in such circumstances, one cannot say that the assessee was liable for imposition of penalty und....