The tax revenue challenged an appellate tribunal order set-aside penalty proceedings initiated 9 years after the assessment. The court held penalty must be levied within 4 years or reasonable time and dismissed the revision.
Tax Revision Case dismissed and consequential miscellaneous petitions dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
TAX REVISION CASE No.165 OF 2013
O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta)
The Revenue has impugned the order dated 31.08.2013, passed in Tribunal Appeal No.558 of 2009, by the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, vide which, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad, dated 09.01.2009 and the order passed by the Assessing authority on 27.12.2004 and the consequential order dated 28.01.2009 w e re set-aside and the order of the appellate authority dated 29.01.2005 was restored.
In the present case, the assessment against the respondentassessee was done on 27.12.2004, whereas the matter was again reopened by the Additional Commissioner (Legal) for the purpose of levying penalty after delay of 9 years on account of misuse of C-Form by the respondent.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no limitation provided for levying penalty and the penalty proceedings can be initiated at any point of time.
We do not agree with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the department has to initiate penalty proceedings within reasonable time and, in any case, not beyond a period of 4 years after passing of the assessment order.
We have already held in TREVC No.173 of 2013, on 05.02.2014 that, the penalty proceedings initiated with inordinate
delay, does not sustain in the eye of law.
In view of the above observation, we find no merits in this Revision and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Tax Revision Case is dismissed.
In consequence, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Case, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
_____________________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
Date.13-02-2014 Dsh
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
201
TAX REVISION CASE No.165 OF 2013
(Order of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta)
Date.13.02.2014
DSH 03122014
2 issues framed by the court
Whether penalty proceedings can be initiated beyond a period of 4 years after the assessment order without reasoning?
Whether penalty proceedings initiated after a delay of 9 years sustain in the eye of law?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
TREVC No.173 of 2013Referred¶10
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Revenue
Respondent-Assessees
Ashutosh Mohunta
M. Satyanarayana Murthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
