TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 8 of the Act. The second proviso to clause (b) of Section 8 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b), dealers having Vertical Shaft Impactor Machines, along with Jaw Crushers, need pay only sixty percent of the tax prescribed for each of such Vertical Shaft Impactor Machine as compounded tax, in addition to the tax payable for the crushing machines. The petitioner had installed a Vertical Shaft Impactor Machine, in addition to crushing machines, in their crusher unit. The output production capacity of the said Vertical Shaft Impactor Machine, according to them, is between 50 to 100 metric tonnes per hour. The compounded tax payable for the said machine under clause (b) of Section 8 of the Act for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is also stated by the petitioner in Ext.P7 reply that the output production capacity of the machine was never tested by the first respondent. It is also stated by the petitioner in Ext.P7 that in any event, if the first respondent intends to proceed with the matter further, an opportunity shall be given to them to establish the output production capacity of the machine by conducting test check. 3. The first respondent did not pursue further the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6(1) notice for about a year. By that time, it is stated that the machine became obsolete. The petitioner therefore replaced the same with another machine. Ext.P10 is the request made by them on 07.09.2015 to their assessing authority thereafter for fixing their t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aration regarding their product in their official website cannot be doubted. It is also stated by the respondents that the writ petitions namely, W.P.(C).Nos.36030 of 2017, 36795 of 2017 and 7973 of 2017 instituted challenging similar orders were not entertained by this Court, leaving the parties to take up the issue in appeal before the appropriate forum. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 7. Section 67(1) of the Act reads thus: "Imposition of penalty by authorities:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 71 if any authority empowered under this Act is satisfied that any person,- (a) being a person required to register himself as a dealer under this Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty, an amount not exceeding twice the amount of tax or other amount evaded or sought to be evaded where it is practicable to quantify the evasion or an amount not exceeding ten thousand rupees in any other case: Provided that the authority empowered under this section shall dispose of the case within three years from the date of detection of offence mentioned under this section except where the extension of time is granted by the Deputy Commissioner." It is seen that Ext.P6 series notices are issued on the basis that the petitioner has acted in contravention of the provisions of the Act by not disclosing the true output production capacity of the Vertical Shaft Impactor Machine installed in their premises in the matter of sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is apposite in this context to refer to the decision of the Division Bench in U.K.Monu Timbers v. State of Kerala [2012 (3) KHC 311]. The said case was also one dealing with the scope of the proceedings under Section 67 of the Act. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment reads thus : 12. Section 67 does not confer power to make a reasonable estimate. The suppression or omission must be clearly disclosed from the materials available and there should be evidence of the amounts sought to be suppressed from the turnover. In cases where the same is not discernible, the only option is to make an order of imposition of fine not exceeding Rs. 10,000/-. Any suppression detected or rather any file generated on a crime so detected and penalise....