Skip to content


Coffee Board Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberT.C. (R) No. 1140 of 1983
Judge
Reported in[1984]55STC352(Mad)
AppellantCoffee Board
RespondentThe State of Tamil Nadu
Advocates:R.L. Ramani, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - in this case, admittedly, the assessee has not submitted the monthly returns for august, 1979, and february and march, 1980. it is also not in dispute that the failure to submit the monthly returns for the above three months within the prescribed time falls within section 12(4)(ii) as the account books maintained by the dealer were found to have been corrected by the assessing authority......upheld by the tribunal is questioned. in this case, admittedly, the assessee has not submitted the monthly returns for august, 1979, and february and march, 1980. it is also not in dispute that the failure to submit the monthly returns for the above three months within the prescribed time falls within section 12(4)(ii) as the account books maintained by the dealer were found to have been corrected by the assessing authority. so far as the default in filing the monthly return for august is concerned, a penalty of rs. 96 was levied; but the tribunal has set aside that penalty on the ground that section 12(5)(ii) came into operation only on 3rd december, 1979, and therefore, the default in filing the monthly return for the month of august, 1979, cannot come within the mischief of section.....
Judgment:

Ramanujam, J.

1. In this tax revision case filed by the assessee, the levy of penalty under section 12(5)(ii) which has been upheld by the Tribunal is questioned. In this case, admittedly, the assessee has not submitted the monthly returns for August, 1979, and February and March, 1980. It is also not in dispute that the failure to submit the monthly returns for the above three months within the prescribed time falls within section 12(4)(ii) as the account books maintained by the dealer were found to have been corrected by the assessing authority. So far as the default in filing the monthly return for August is concerned, a penalty of Rs. 96 was levied; but the Tribunal has set aside that penalty on the ground that section 12(5)(ii) came into operation only on 3rd December, 1979, and therefore, the default in filing the monthly return for the month of August, 1979, cannot come within the mischief of section 12(5)(ii). However, it sustained the penalty levied for the default committed in filing the monthly returns for February and March, 1980. The Tribunal felt that the default came squarely within the scope of section 12(4)(ii) read with section 12(5)(ii). In that view, the Tribunal upheld the penalty levied for the default committed in filing the monthly returns for February and March, 1980. The learned counsel for the assessee is not able to substantiate his claim that no penalty could be levied under section 12(5)(ii). The learned counsel then contends that it is only a technical default and for that the levy of penalty is not justified, especially when the assessee itself has voluntarily submitted a consolidated return comprising February and March, 1980. Even assuming that the assessee has filed a consolidated return including the months of February and March, 1980, it is not proper compliance with the statutory provisions which required a monthly return to be filed for each month within 25th of the next succeeding month. Therefore, the assessee cannot be said to have complied with the statutory requirement of filing the monthly returns for the months of February and March, 1980. This default comes within the scope of section 12(4)(ii), and therefore, section 12(5)(ii) stands attracted. We cannot, therefore, say that the Tribunal is in error in sustaining the penalty.

2. This tax revision case is, therefore, dismissed.


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