Case Law Details
Sayar Cars Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Building (Madras High Court)
It is an admitted position that none of the assessment orders or, for the matter, the show cause notices, reveal any application of mind to the aspect of wilful suppression. The officer merely proceeds on the fact that there was a difference in turnover between the books of accounts and the monthly returns and this, according to him, justifies the invocation of Section 27(3).
An additional factor in this matter is that the petitioner has admittedly remitted the difference in tax along with interest even at the time of inspection. This aspect of the matter is not disputed by the learned Government Advocate. Bearing in mind the conspectus of facts and available precedents, I am of the considered view that the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority, that the imposition of penalty under Section 27(3) is automatic, is erroneous in law. The appellate order, to this extent, is set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner is an authorized sales and service centre for Chevrolet cars in Vellore and a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short ‘TNVAT Act’). It continues to be a dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘TNGST Act’).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
