TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an amount of Rs. 62,566/- was confirmed against the petitioner as the differential tax payable by the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 7,09,875/- was imposed as a penalty under section 12 (3) and 22 (2) of the TNGST Act, 1959 on the petitioner. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Appeals vide A.P.No.156 of 2001 by admitting the tax liability partly by confining it to Rs. 15,718/-and the penalty of Rs. 7,09,875/- imposed on the petitioner. 4. During the pendency of the above appeal, Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 was enacted with effect from 1.7.2002. In terms of the above enactment, assessees were entitled to settle their disputes with the commercial tax department. Under these....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he settlement scheme on 50% of the total tax due and 25% of the said 50% as penalty which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the scheme under the Act. 10. According to the respondent, the petitioner has to pay additional amount of Rs. 1,04,516/-which is 15% of the penalty levied under Section 12 (3) and 22 (2) of the TNGST Act, 1959 in terms of Section 7(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision has to be read plainly and there is nothing to be intended by asking the petitioner to pay amounts separately towards the penalty imposed under Section 12(3) and 22....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of sub-section (1) shall be twenty-five percentum of the interest payable at the rate specified under the relevant Act and the same; shall be paid before the issue of certificate under section 8. 14. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, rate applicable to the petitioner is under Section 7(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 as the petitioner was in arrears of tax and penalty. It is submitted that as per the above provision, the petitioner required to pay 50% of tax in dispute and 25% of such 50% of tax and thus the amount paid by the petitioner was as follows:- " 50% of Rs. 15,718+25% of 50% of 15,718= 7859+1965 thus totalling to Rs. 9824/-." 15. Whereas, according to the respondent the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the method prescribed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Act has a defective design as a result of which an unintended benefit accrues to the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner's case is covered under the situation contemplated under Section 7(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. 19. The cardinal rule of principle in tax laws is "nothing to be inferred or intended". 20. In Cape Brandy Syndicate's (T921) 1KB 64 it was held as follows:- " i. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relied upon to observe that reasons of morality and fairness can have no application to bring a citizen who is not within the four corners of the taxing statute within its fold so as to make him liable to payment of tax. In this regard paras 32, 33 and 34 of the opinion rendered in Shabina Abraham[Shabina Abraham v.CCE, (2015) 10 SCC 770 : (2015) 322 ELT 372] would commend to us for recapitulation and, therefore, are extracted below: - 32. The impugned judgment in the present case has referred to Elis C. Reid case [CITv.Elis C. Reid, 1930 SCC OnLine Bom 58 : AIR 1931 Bom 333] but has not extracted the real ratio contained therein. It then goes on to say that this is a case of short levy which has been noticed during the lifetime of the de....