TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act'). 2. The petitioner is a dealer on the files of the respondent officer as an assessee engaged in the trading of jewellery and gift articles. There was an inspection by the Enforcement Wing of the Commercial Taxes Department that had embarked on a field audit of the petitioners' books of accounts relating to the periods 2008-09 to 2012-13. Pursuant to certain discrepancies noticed in the claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC), notices for revision were issued and orders of assessment dated 25.02.2014 passed as against which W.P.Nos.8788 to 8792 of 2014 were filed by the petitioner. 3. The writ petitions were disposed on 29.10.2014 setting aside the impugned orders and permitting the petitioner to file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of four weeks from date of receipt of the Courts' order. 6. On 04.01.2017, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 29.12.2016, imposing penalty under Section 27(4) for wrongful availment of ITC. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order is without any legal sanction and is liable to be quashed since it does not find support from the provisions of Section 27(4) read with Section 27(2) of the Act. 7. In counter, the respondent refers to the modifications effected to the turnover originally in regard to the quantum of stock transfers, reversing the ITC on such stock transfers. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent had taken the rectification petition up for disposal in line with order of this Court dated 01.02.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sal of ITC. 4. Quantity-wise statement for Gold and Bullion in which major portion of item were transferred out to other states. 5. Some stock transfer in voices purchase/sales invoicescopies- produced as documentary evidence for support of stock transfer & reversal of ITC under section 19(4).' 9. The impugned order has thereafter been passed on 29.12.2016 after consideration of the petition for rectification as well as the Instructions issued by the higher officials, as per which there is no liability to regular tax after giving effect to the ITC claimed. The demand due from the petitioner has been quantified after reversal of ITC in terms of Section 19(4), as follows: Year Tax Due u/s.12 Tax demand on reversa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to pay as penalty a sum which shall be three hundred per cent of the tax due in respect of such claim: Provided that no penalty shall be levied without giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such imposition. 11. The scheme of assessment under Section 27(2) relates to the wrongful availment of ITC supported by the production of false bills, vouchers, declaration certificates or other documents. 12. The quantification of such penalty hinges upon the tax determined to be due by the assessee. A demand of tax due to the revenue by an assessee is thus a sine qua non for the levy of penalty under Section 27(4), the provisions of sub-Section 4 making it amply clear that the levy of penalty shall be 300% of the tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Due Rs. Nil 2011-12 7. Actual Balance due as per this order Rs. 7,32,38,879/- 8. Less : Reversal of ITC made out of Rs. 460329458/- in the monthly return Rs. 7,32,38,879/- 9. Net Balance Due Rs. Nil 2012-13 6. Actual Balance due as per this order Rs. 15,54,52,949/- 7. Less : Reversal of ITC made out of Rs. 460329458 in the monthly return Rs. 15,54,52,949/- 8. Net Balance Due Rs. Nil 2013-14 6. Actual Balance due as per this order Rs. 13,96,28,537/- 7. Less : Reversal of ITC made out of Rs. 460329458 in the monthly return Rs. 13,96,28,537/- 8. Net Balance Due Rs. Nil 15. The scheme of assessment & levy of penalty in ....