Skip to content


State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sri Swamy and Company - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case Nos. 197 and 301 of 1975 (Revision Nos. 22 and 23 of 1975)
Judge
Reported in[1977]39STC85(Mad)
AppellantState of Tamil Nadu
RespondentSri Swamy and Company
Appellant AdvocateK. Govindarajan, Adv. for ;the Additional Government Pleader No. I
Respondent AdvocateC. Natarajan, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- - in fact, the assessing officer, after discussing the anamath slips, which showed sales, clearly stated that the penalty is levied for proved suppression. the use of the word 'suppression' clearly brings out the wilful nature of the non-disclosure and, therefore, the tribunal was not right in setting aside the penalty merely on the ground that there was no finding of wilful non-disclosure......relating to setting aside the order of penalty. the tribunal is not correct in stating that the assessing officer had not given a finding of wilful non-disclosure of the taxable turnover. in fact, the assessing officer, after discussing the anamath slips, which showed sales, clearly stated that the penalty is levied for proved suppression. the use of the word 'suppression' shows that what the assessing officer found was wilful non-disclosure. if it was not a wilful non-disclosure, the assessing officer would have stated as merely omissions. the use of the word 'suppression' clearly brings out the wilful nature of the non-disclosure and, therefore, the tribunal was not right in setting aside the penalty merely on the ground that there was no finding of wilful non-disclosure.2. these.....
Judgment:

V. Ramaswami, J.

1. In these two cases while revising the assessments of the dealer under Section 16, the assessing officer also levied penalty under Section 16(2). The Tribunal set aside the order of penalty while confirming the reassessment order in one case and reducing the escaped turnover in the other case on the ground that there was no specific finding of wilful non-disclosure of the turnover as required under Section 16(2) of the Act. These revision petitions have been filed challenging only that portion of the order of the Tribunal relating to setting aside the order of penalty. The Tribunal is not correct in stating that the assessing officer had not given a finding of wilful non-disclosure of the taxable turnover. In fact, the assessing officer, after discussing the anamath slips, which showed sales, clearly stated that the penalty is levied for proved suppression. The use of the word 'suppression' shows that what the assessing officer found was wilful non-disclosure. If it was not a wilful non-disclosure, the assessing officer would have stated as merely omissions. The use of the word 'suppression' clearly brings out the wilful nature of the non-disclosure and, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the penalty merely on the ground that there was no finding of wilful non-disclosure.

2. These two tax revision cases are accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal in so far as it related to the penalty is set aside. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150 in each.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //