Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 5]

Kerala High Court

The Travancore Cements Ltd vs The Asst. Commissioner (Assmt.)I on 19 December, 2006

Author: C.N.Ramachandran Nair

Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 10362 of 2003(H)


1. THE TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD., NATTAKOM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.)I,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :19/12/2006

 O R D E R
                            C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

                       ....................................................................

                                     O.P. No.10362  of  2003

                       ....................................................................

                      Dated this the  19th  day of December, 2006.


                                              JUDGMENT

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. The petitioner is challenging order of the Commissioner sustaining penalty levied under Section 45A(g) of the KGST Act for deficiency in payment of advance tax. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that advance tax was substantially paid and shortage arises on account of unprecedental sales in the end of the year, Government Pleader submitted that petitioner could have made payment atleast by the last day of March of the year. In any case it is a settled position that failure or deficiency to pay advance tax is violation of the mandatory provision of Rule 21(7) of the KGST Rules and therefore penalty can be levied. However, having regard to the fact that petitioner is a Government company and that petitioner has paid substantial amount of advance tax, I feel the case calls for further reduction of penalty. However, since violation is committed by a State Government company, it is for the management to consider whether penalty should be recovered from the concerned officer responsible for the same. In the circumstances, O.P. is disposed of reducing the penalty to rupees one lakh.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms