JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J.

The present appeal has been filed under 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'Act 2003') seeking setting aside of orders dated 12.08.1994, 23.03.1995, 13.07.2012, 31.07.2012 (A-3).

2. The case in brief is that the appellant-Company is engaged in manufacturer of motorcycle, which are sold not only with the State of Haryana but in the other States also where they have depots. The appellant- Company filed its return before the appropriate assessing authority, Faridabad for the quarter 01.04.1990 to 30.06.1990 on 31.07.1990 in which the total turnover of Inter-State Sales as per column No. 4 was shown as 30,41,65.307.88/- and the total tax payable was shown as Rs. 01,27,04,894.17/-.

3. However, during this period, a consignment of motor cycles of the appellant-company sent from Faridabad to its Gaziabad and Secundrabad depots, was checked at Sales Tax Check Barrier (STCB), Faridabad and it was found that the appellant had shown the Inter-State Sales as branch transfers with a view to evade the tax due to the State.

4. Vide order dated 15.09.1990, the Checking officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 02,14,985/- under section 9(2A) of the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT (in short CST Act') read with section 37 (6) of the HARYANA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT , 1975 (in short HGST Act'), which was on remanded by the JETC (A) was reduced to Rs.1,94,051/-, vide order dated 28.03.1994. Detailed verifications were made from Ghaziabad and Secundrabad Depots regarding stock transfers from Faridabad. As a result of these verifications, the appellant-Company revised these two returns on 17.02.1991 by converting excess stock transfers into Inter State Sales and paid tax due according to the revised returns.

5. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (DETC) thereafter, imposed penalty of Rs.29,00,000/- and Rs.27,00,000/- under Section 9 (2A) of the CST read with Section 48 of HGST Act for the first two quarters of 1990-91 respectively, vide order dated 12.08.1994. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on 22.03.1995. Thereafter, the appellant preferred two appeals before the Tribunal at Chandigarh, which were also dismissed on 28.06.2012. Hence the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that when the assess-appellant itself filed a revised return voluntarily during the return period as two more returns are yet to be filed, before initiation of any assessment proceedings for the relevant year and before the assessment is finalized, the imposition of penalty would not be justified. Further the appellant filed returns under protest.

7. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no suppression of turnover to attract penalty under Section 48 of HARYANA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT , 1973.

8. Learned counsel is relying upon the following judgments:-

1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Lucky Radio House, 1995 SCC Online Mad 804

2. M/s Jagat Tractors v. State of Haryana, STI 1981 PB & HN. Tribunals 182

3. Khosla Mills v. State of Punjab and others, 1972 SCC Online P&H 424

4. M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd v. State of Orissa, 1969 (2) SCC 627

5. Anantharam Veerasinghaiah and Co. v. CIT, 1980 Supp SCC 13

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that the appellant was not honest and has not disclosed the actual tax liability. He was making inter State sales by dispatching goods to the dealers situated outside the State of Haryana. It was only after a detention of a consignment at the STCB, Faridabad that the appellant was made to revise the first two quarterly returns after verification from the Depots of Ghaziabad and Faridabad.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

11. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are of no help to the appellant.

12. In Lucky Radio House's case (supra), Hon'ble Madras High Court was dealing with a case of assessee against whom a penalty of Rs.597/- was levied under Section 12 (5) (iii) of the Tamil Nad