Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)

M.Mohamed Haneefa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 June, 2021

6. With regard to the second question, it is challenging the levy of penalty under Section 12(5) (iii) of the Act. Admittedly the turn over in question was available in the Books of Accounts of the dealer and the assessment was as per the details available in the books of accounts and in such circumstances, the question of levy of penalty would not arise. It is relevant to point out that relying upon the decision of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd Vs. Commerical Tax Officer (FAC) 2002 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.R(MD).No.1815 of 2006 (125) STC 505 (Mad)], a decision was taken in favour of the dealer in the case of India Industries Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2014 (69) VST 139 (Mad)]. Therefore, question of law No.2 is answered in favour of the assesse and penalty levied on the assesse stands deleted.

Dr Enterprise Automotive Pvt.Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) on 7 June, 2016

6. Further, with regard to the proposal to levy penalty under Section 27(3) of the said Act, the petitioner referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Indra Industries Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2014) 69 VST 139] and stated that penalty could be levied only in the case of concealment of sales or purchase transactions and in that case, all transactions of deletion are available in the books of accounts and they have reflected in the annual financial transactions. Therefore, the petitioner requested to drop the proposal of levy of penalty under Section 27(3) of the said Act. Along with the explanation, the petitioner enclosed the details of invoices wherein mismatch was alleged. The respondent, on receipt of the objections dated 12.2.2016, proceeded to pass the impugned orders of assessment dated 18.5.2016.
1