2022 (1) TMI 863

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d also perused the materials placed before us. 2.All the four writ petitions are filed against the order dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore / 3rd respondent herein, wherein, the Tribunal set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority / 2nd respondent and restored the orders of assessment passed by the first respondent insofar as it relates to levy of penalty under section 12(3)(a) of the TNGST Act, 1959. 3.The petitioner is engaged in execution of works contract. During the assessment years from 1992-93 to 1995-96, they had not registered themselves nor collected or paid taxes in respect of their construction activities, on the belief that what was transferred by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he completion of the assessment for the years in question. However, the first respondent levied penalty under section 12(3)(a) on the premise that the petitioner had wilfully failed to get registration and file their returns in order to avoid payment of tax. Hence, the petitioner filed appeals before the second respondent to challenge the orders of assessment. 6.In the appeals, the second respondent / appellate authority, deleted the penalty levied by the assessing officer, after having found that the petitioner had admitted the tax liability, remitted the same and filed their returns for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 before the final assessment i.e., on 25.03.1998 and the assessing officer erred in finding t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no returns were filed during the assessment years in question. In the case of non-availability of the returns in the assessment file, the Tribunal, instead of confirming the levy of penalty under section 12(3)(a) of the TNGST Act, ought to have remanded the matter for denovo consideration and ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of law. 10.We find some substance in the contention so made on the side of the petitioner. The Tribunal before reversing the order of the first appellate authority, ought to have remanded the matter back to the assessing officer to verify, as to whether the submission of the petitioner that the returns ha....