news round up - Taxmann

2010] Rajesh Electricals v. Registrar (MP)
245
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
HELD
From the assessment order, it would clearly appear that the Assessing
Officer was of the opinion that the sales tax return was bad, as the tax was
paid at the rate of 3 per cent only, while in fact the starter would attract the
rate of 12 per cent. After holding so, the Assessing Officer imposed the
penalty. Once the tax rate was held to be 3 per cent and it was further held
by the Board that imposition of tax at the rate of 12 per cent was bad, then
the return filed by the assessee could not be held to be false, wrong or bad.
[Para 6]
Once the return was held to be properly filed and that the tax was paid in
accordance with law, then the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction
to impose the penalty. [Para 7]
Therefore, the penalty imposed upon the assessee was liable to be set aside.
[Para 8]
Anand Soni for the Petitioner. A.S. Kutumble and Smt. Anjali Jamkhedkar
for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Shri A.S. Kutumble, learned Additional Advocate General with
Smt. Anjali Jamkhedkar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent - State.
3. Though the matter is listed on the question of admission, but with the
consent of the parties and as the reply has been received, the matter is
finally heard.
4. The petitioner, who is dealing in certain electrical goods and in the
Pumping Sets had filed his sales tax return showing that on the starters
and switches only 3 per cent tax was payable. He accordingly, deposited
the said tax. When the matter came before the Assessing Officer, he held
that the tax was payable at the rate of 12 per cent and not at the rate of 3
per cent, he accordingly, held the return to be a false return, directed
recovery of the tax at the rate of 12 per cent and also imposed penalty. The
orders were challenged up to Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal.
The Board agreed with the submissions made by the present petitioner
and held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was bad. It further
held that the tax was payable at the rate of 3 per cent only. The petitioner
thereafter made an application under section 71 of the M.P. Commercial
Tax Act, 1994 with a submission that the question relating to penalty had
not been decided though was raised, therefore, the same be also decided.
The said application came to be dismissed on 28-6-2008 in Rectification
Case No. 8/CTAB/08 (for the period between 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1989). The
Board held that the question was not raised before them, therefore, the
application under section 71 was not maintainable, the Board accordingly,
rejected the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of
the petition had submitted that the Board had observed that the tax was
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 121