2018 (6) TMI 1130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs passed by the revisional authority, viz., Joint Commissioner (CT) (RP). 3. By the impugned proceedings, levy of penalty has been confirmed. Identical issue came up for consideration before this court in the case of General Industrial Leathers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai v.the Joint Commissioner (CT) (RP), Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005 made in W.P.No.19108 of 2005, dated 10.08.2016. The court took into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (E.I.D. Parry (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, reported in (2005) 4 RC 767 and allowed the writ petition. The operative portion order reads as follows:- "2. The petitioner, who i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner of Commercial Taxes, reported in (2005) 4 RC 767. 5. In fact, I had an occasion to consider somewhat an identical issue in the case of (Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others), in W.P.No.5929 of 2005, dated 03.08.2016. In the said case, as contended herein, the learned Additional Government Pleader referred to Section 13 of the TNGST Act, and submitted that once returns are accepted, then, there is no question of assessment to be made and the dues can be claimed. This Court, after taking into consideration the decision rendered in the case of E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., (supra), allowed the Writ Petition. In the said case also, there was differential tax amount, payabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the petitioner does not pay the amount, then the Assessing Officer would be entitled to issue notice and upon violation to pay the amount, interest would be attracted. In the instant case, the petitioner did not admit his return and assessment was completed and he was assessed to tax @ 10% only on 27.10.1997 i.e., after about seven years after the relevant period, viz., August and September 1991. After the Assessment Authority held that tax is liable to be paid @ 10%, the petitioner paid the differential tax of 6% immediately after the order was passed in 1997. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 13 would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. Thus applying the legal principles as enunciated by the Hon'ble Su....