TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in fans and domestic appliances. Dealers were assessed, under Self-assessment scheme, as per Section 22 (2) of TNVAT Act, 2006, for the year 2007 08, based on the monthly returns filed by them. 3. Place of business of the dealers was audited by the Enforcement I officials during the period from 19/11/2009 to 20/11/2009 and audit revealed the following defects:- (i). Dealers during the year 2007 2008, have wrongly claimed input tax credit, to the tune of Rs. 87,624/-, on the purchase of UPS for their office computers and van for office use. (ii). Dealers effect purchases of taxable goods locally but declared as exempt purchases. (iii). The dealers effected sale of fan to the units situated in SEZ units for which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be imposed on a mechanical manner without independent evaluation and appraisal and that before imposing penalty, the authority has to find out that there has been an attempt to evade tax as held in 89 STC 494. 9. Being aggrieved, the State has preferred the instant Tax Tax Case Revision. 10. Mr.V.Haribabu, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that for the year 2007 2008, ITC was reversed, as per Section 27 (2) of TNVAT Act, 2006, for the wrong availment of ITC on the sale of fan to unit located in SEZ which was detected by the department during audit. As such, being the second year, an amount of Rs. 14,298/- was levied as penalty under Section 27 (4) TNVAT Act, 2006 being 100% of ITC reversed at Rs. 14,298/- w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....return, if the tax paid as per the return falls short of the tax assessed on final assessment by more than fifteen per cent but not more than twenty-five per cent; 15. In Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) and Others, reported in {(2002) 125 STC 505}, considering a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madras Vs. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons {(1971) 28 STC 700, at paras 5 to 7, held as follows:- 5. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras Vs. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons {(1971) 28 STC 700, at page 701, after extracting Section 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which remains in the same form even now, observed thus:- The question is whether penalty can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment. 6. The law so declared that the best judgment assessment is based on an estimate and is not one based solely on the account books was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh Vs. H.M.Esufali H.M.ABDULALI {(1973) 32 stc 77}. 7. Though other sub-Sections of Section 12 were amended by the State Legislature subsequent to the date of the judgment in the case of Jayaraj Nadar & Sons {(1971) 28 STC 700 (SC), Sections 12 (1) and 12 (2) have remained in the same form. The legislative intention therefore, except during the period December 3, 1979 to May 27, 1993 and on and after April 1, 1996 must be taken to be to, permit the levy of penalty only in case where the assessment is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le in the books of accounts are to be excluded and only those turnover which are estimated having reference to a specific concealment alone, the purpose of addition, invite the penal provisions under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In the decision reported in [2002] 125 STC 505 (Mad) (Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer (FAC)) this court pointed out that when the assessment is based on the accounts turnover, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. 9. In the circumstances, applying the said decision reported in [2002] 125 STC 505 (Mad) (Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer (FAC)) and the Explanation to section12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales....