AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Rs. 48,65,364/- at 8% and penalty of Rs. 1,30,993/-, under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act and penalty of Rs. 1,35,289/-, under Section 22(2) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, vide order, dated 01.04.1998, partly allowed the appeal, as follows: "I heard their arguments and also perused the connected records. The main points for consideration in these appeals are:- i) Whether the learned Assessing Officer has got the competence levy tax under Section 3B? ii) Whether the levy of Penalty under Section 12(5)(iii) for 1990-91 is Correct? iii) Whether the levy of Penalty under Section 12(5)(iii) and 12(3)(b) for 1991-92 and 1993-94 is legal? iv) Whether the levy of Penalty under Section 22(2) for 1991-92 and 1993-94 can be sustained? POINT (I): Admittedly the appellants entered into contract with outside the State parties to manufacture and supply printed was papers and printed celephone papers out of the paper supplied by the parties using their own paraffin wax, printing inks and polyflakes. It has also been a fact that waxing printing took place within Tamil Nadu and the finished printed wax papers and pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-89 and 89-90 under the same facts and identical circumstances relying on the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ganon Dunkerly & Co (Vs.) State of Rajasthan. In the Tribunal Appeals referred to above the learned Members of the Additional Bench hold as follows:- "So bearing all these things in mind it is clear that the transfer of property in goods namely wax, printing ink, etc., which were involved in the executing of works Contract had taken place within the State as those goods were within the State itself at the time of transfer and further even if agreement was made for works contract outside the State it would not have any relevance at all whether the assent of the other party is prior to or subsequent to such transfer." Following earnestly the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai. I confirm the levy of tax on 70% of the conversion charges for all the years including the conversion charges received from parties within the State. I relied more on the judgment of Chennai Tribunal since it has been based on the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Law reported in 88 STC P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eral Sales Tax Act, 1959, against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) II, Chennai, in A.P.No.969 of 1995, dated 1/4/1998. Vide Order, dated 2/12/2002, the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, dismissed the same, as hereunder: "6. We find that the respondent/dealers were finally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 64,61,796/- for the year 1993-94 under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Aggrieved, the respondents filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which was allowed with regard to penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act and other issues partly confirmed and partly remanded. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the penalty under Section 12(3)(b) on the basis that the penalty levied is not legal as the assessment is the one made under Section 12(1) of the Act by accepting the book turnover. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner has deleted the penalty as per the principles stated in 28 STC 700. Not satisfied on the orders of Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the appellant/State filed this second appeal before us. The learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te has preferred Special Leave Petition in an identical issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is pending in SLP.CC.7430/2002/Tagged with C.A.Nos.1683 of 2002 dated 25/6/2002 in respect of the issue relating to levy of penalty under Section 12 (3) (b) of the TNGST Act. 8. Section 12(3)(b) of the Act deals with, submission of incorrect or incomplete return and for the purpose of levy of penalty, under Clause (b), the tax assessed on the following kinds of turnover shall be deducted from the tax assessed on final assessment, "(i) twenty-five per cent of the difference of the tax assessed and the tax paid as per return, if the tax paid as per the return falls short of the tax assessed on final assessment by not more than five per cent; (i-a) fifty per cent of the difference of the tax assessed and the tax paid as per return, if the tax paid as per the return falls short of the tax assessed on final assessment by more than five per cent but not more than fifteen per cent; (ii) seventy-five per cent of the difference of the tax assessed and the tax paid as per return, if the tax paid as per the return falls short of the tax assessed on final assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 a best judgment assessment made on an estimate and not by relying solely on the accounts furnished by the assessee in the prescribed return. On and after April 1, 1996 an explanation has been added below Section 12 (3) which requires the turnover relating to the tax assessed on the basis of the accounts of the assessee, to be disregarded, while determining the turnover on which the penalty is to be levied under Section 12 (3). 10. In Indira Industries Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in {2014 (69) VST 139 (Mad.), this Court considered a question, as to whether, levy of penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, was justifiable, particularly....