Bengal Chemicolour Co. Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Madras High Court 3 Dec 2009 Writ Petition No. 20333 of 2000 (2010) 28 VST 393
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 20333 of 2000

Hon'ble Bench

M.M. Sundresh, J; K. Raviraja Pandian, J

Advocates

P. Rajkumar, for the Appellant; Raja Nazirudeen, Special Government Pleader, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 — Section 9(2A)#Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 — Section 12, 12(1), 12(2), 12(3)

Judgement Text

Translate:

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.@mdashThe writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated in S.T.A. No.

107 of 1999 dated July 10, 2000 restoring penalty u/s 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with Section 9(2A) of the

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

2. When the matter is taken up for orders, the counsel for the Department as well as the counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue has been

covered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in

[2002] 125 STC 505 in favour of the assessee to the effect that the penalty levied u/s 12(3)(b) of the TNGST Act read with Section 9(2) of the

CST Act cannot be levied in respect of the assessment made u/s 12(1) of the TNGST Act.

3. In the present case, the penalty has been levied only in respect of the assessment made u/s 12(1) of the TNGST Act against the statutory

provision as well as the law laid down by this Court in the abovesaid judgment, wherein it was held thus (at page 508 of 125 STC):

7. Though other sub-sections of Section 12 were amended by the State Legislature subsequent to the date of the judgment in the case of The State

of Madras Vs. S.G. Jayaraj Nadar and Sons, , Sections 12(1) and 12(2) have remained in the same form. The legislative intention therefore,

except during the period December 3, 1979 to May 27, 1993 and on and after April 1, 1996 must be taken to be to, permit the levy of penalty

only in case where the assessment is a best judgment assessment made on an estimate and not by relying solely on the accounts furnished by the

assessee in the prescribed return. On and after April 1, 1996 an explanation has been added below Section 12(3) which requires the turnover

relating to the tax assessed on the basis of the accounts of the assessee, to be disregarded, while determining the turnover on which the penalty is

to be levied u/s 12(3).

8. The assessments for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 which were assessments made on the basis of the accounts, and not based on

any other material and were not estimates, have therefore, to be regarded as assessments made u/s 12(1) to which the penal provisions of Section

12(3) are not attracted. The levy of penalty for those two assessment years is set aside.

4. Hence, following the judgment referred to above, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal levying penalty is not in consonance with the

statutory provision as well as the law declared by this Court in the above- said judgment. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Reviews Forest Rights Act Protecting Livelihoods
Oct
24
2025

Story

Supreme Court Reviews Forest Rights Act Protecting Livelihoods
Read More
Patna HC: Promotions Valid Only from Actual or DPC Date
Oct
24
2025

Story

Patna HC: Promotions Valid Only from Actual or DPC Date
Read More