2021 (3) TMI 890

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 22.01.2020 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in C.T.S.A.No.122/2017 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2.The petitioner/assessee has raised the following question of law for consideration: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in restoring the penalty levied under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act when there is no finding rendered by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that the petitioner willfully failed to disclose the assessable turnover?" 3.We have heard Mr.Adithya Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee and Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. 4.The busi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [2010 (29) VST 622 (Mad)] and deleted the penalty levied on the assessee. 5.Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred appeal before the Tribunal praying for restoration of the order of penalty passed by the Assessing Officer. The respondent State argued that the penalty should be restored and that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority deleting the penalty was erroneous. On the other hand, the assessee sought to sustain the order passed by the First Appellate Authority primarily on the ground that the Assessing authority has not recorded any specific finding of willful suppression of the turnover for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act. In support of their contention as many as fifteen decisions of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it was a non-speaking order so far as the issue relating to levy of penalty is concerned. 7.When the matter was challenged before the First Appellate Authority, the objections raised by the assessee was considered and the First Appellate Authority rightly took note of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steels Ltd. and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lingam and Co. and held that the mensrea in the conduct of the assessee was bound to be placed on record to justify the levy of penalty and accordingly allowed the appeal. The Tribunal, in our considered view exceeded its jurisdiction in adjudicating upon an issue which was never adjudicated by the Assessing Officer at the first instanc....