TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by 'second respondent' [hereinafter 'Appellate Authority' for the sake of convenience] has been called in question. 2. In the case on hand, three statutes and Rules thereunder operate, they are (i) 'the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017' [hereinafter 'C-G & ST Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity], (ii) 'Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 2017)' [hereinafter 'TN-G & ST Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and (iii) 'the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017' [hereinafter 'I-G & ST Act']. 3. Before plunging into the matter, it is necessary to record that an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t there are three heads of defects and they are, (a)alleged sales suppression; (b) contravention of statutory provisions [3 in number being (i) non-maintenance of particulars of name/complete address of suppliers qua goods and services chargeable to tax; (ii) non-maintenance of particulars of name/complete address qua entities to whom goods and services were supplied and (iii) monthly production accounts showing quantitative details of raw materials used in the manufacture and quantitative details of goods manufactured including the waste and by-products not maintained qua sub-Rule(12) of Rule 56 of C-G & ST and TN-G & ST Rules] and (c) GSTR -1 filed upto 2019 but GSTR 3 B not filed, tax collected but not paid to the Government; that the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 44 of TN-G & ST and C-G & ST Acts read with Notification No.4 of 2021-Central Tax, dated 28.02.2021 for 'said FY' petitioner had time for reconciling the annual return till 31.03.2021, whereas the inspection was in April of 2019. To be precise, the last date was 28.04.2019 as already alluded to supra. This takes this Court to Section 74 of TN-G & ST and C-G & ST Acts. A careful perusal of Section 74 makes it clear that 'suppression of facts to evade tax' is the expression used. As the writ petitioner has time till 31.03.2021 to reconcile, it may not really qualify as suppression but that does not take the writ petitioner away from the rigour of penalty as Section 73 is available. Section 73 talks about tax that has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.' 9. A careful perusal of the language in which the above provisions are couched will make it clear that levy of penalty under Section 74 may not be attracted but levy under Section 73 is attracted. This leaves the writ petitioner in a situation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions 125 and 126 read as follows: '125.General penalty Any person, who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder for which no penalty is separately provided for in this Act, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees.' '126.General disciplines related to penalty (1) No officer under this Act shall impose any penalty for minor breaches of tax regulations or procedural requirements and in particular, any omission or mistake in documentation which is easily rectifiable and made without fraudulent intent or gross negligence. Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-section, - (a) a breach shall be considered a 'minor breach' if the amount of tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invoke Section 125 with regard to each of the non-compliances and levy Rs.25,000/- each, which would have added upto Rs.75,000/-. However, in the case on hand, Original Authority has levied penalty of only Rs.25,000/- for all three non-compliances put together. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that maximum penalty to which a general penalty under Section 125 can extend, has been exercised in the case on hand. To be noted, as regards three non-compliances, there is no disputation or contestation on facts. This by itself drops the curtains on the second point. As regards the third point, the point that is urged by writ petitioner is 100% penalty under Section 122(1) is not attracted and a lenient view should have been taken by resorting to Se....