Allowed

K.Subramani Works Contractor v. State Tax Officer

Madras HC23 Apr 2018WP/10087/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petitions challenging penalty orders under Section 27(3) of the TN VAT Act. Court held that since the petitioner paid tax before show cause notices, the finding of willful nondisclosure was flawed. Impugned orders remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; matters remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration of penalty levy considering the petitioner's pre-notice tax payment.

K.Subramani Works Contractor Vs State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.4.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NOS.10087 TO 10090 OF 2018 AND WMP.NOS.12043 TO 12046 OF 2018

¶6

K.Subramani Works Contractor

¶7

rep.by its Proprietor K.Subramani

¶8

...Petitioner in all WP's

¶9

¶10

The State Tax Officer, Cholavaram Assessment Circle, No.22, Jawaharlal Road, 1st Street, Redhills, Chennai-52. ...Respondent in all WP's

¶11

PETITIONS under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari to call for the impugned proceedings passed respectively in TIN 33321701150/2010-11 dated 26.3.2018, TIN 33321701150/2011-12 dated 26.3.2018, TIN 33321701150/2012-13 dated 26.3.2018 and TIN 33321701150/2015-16 dated 27.3.2018 and quash the same in so far as it relates to imposition of penalty under Section 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 amounting to Rs.14,24,703/-; Rs.8,73,620/-; Rs.6,07,593/- and Rs.6,73,182/respectively.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Murali

¶13

For Respondent : Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, GA

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal.

¶16

In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders of assessment only with regard to the imposition of penalty on the ground that but for the surprise inspection, the suppression would not have come to light.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

The penalty has been imposed under Section 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. In terms of the said provision, to levy penalty, the Assessing Officer should record his satisfaction that escapement of tax was due to willful nondisclosure. Mere non-disclosure does not automatically lead to levy of penalty. The Statute contemplates levy of penalty in cases of willful non-disclosure. Therefore, the petitioner's conduct in paying the tax at the time of inspection prior to issuance of the show cause notices can be taken into consideration. Therefore, this Court is of the view that assessment should be re-done under this head.

¶19

4. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for a fresh consideration. The respondent shall take note of the conduct of the petitioner in remitting tax even prior to the issuance of the show cause notices dated 28.2.2018 and consider the issue regarding the levy of penalty and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To

¶21

The State Tax Officer, Cholavaram Assessment Circle, No.22, Jawaharlal Road, 1st Street, Redhills, Chennai-52.

¶22

+4cc's to Mr.N.Murali, Advocate SR.No.29879 +1cc to Special Government Pleader (Taxes) SR.No.30439 WP.Nos.10087 to 10090 of 2018& WMP.Nos.12043 to 12046 of 2018

¶23

SVI(CO) GN(11/05/2018)

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Subramani Works Contractor v. State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subramani Works Contractor v. State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Barakathnisa Vs The Principal Commissioner of

S.Lashmipathy Vs The Commissioner

Tvl.S.M.Square Marketing, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of

M/s.Senthil Andavar Pipe Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

Serene Remedies Medicines Vs The tamil Nadu Sales Tax

Tvl.Shree Guru Hasti Thanga Vs The State Tax Officer