Back
ABDUL MOIN
Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U. P. Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. Learned counsels appearing for the parties contend that the issue involved in SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. -40 of 2021 and SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. -39 of 2021 are the same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear and decide both the revisions together. For convenience, facts of SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. -40 of 2021 are being taken.
3. This Court vide the order dated 17.08.2021 had admitted the revision. However the questions of law were not framed.
4. Both the learned counsels state that the questions of law which would be relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the instant revision would be as follows:
"(I) Whether the men-rea on the part of the assessee is an essential pre-requisite condition for imposition of penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008?
(II) Whether penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the Act can be imposed where the assessment is made on the basis of Best Judgment Assessment?
(IV) Whether imposition of penalty of 7 times the total tax imposed towards alleged concealed turn
Mens-rea is an essential pre-requisite condition for imposition of penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008.
The filing of revised returns after the initiation of penalty proceedings lacked bona fide and did not absolve the petitioner from liability under Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act.
Assessments beyond five years are invalid without proper notice, and best judgment assessments require rejection of returns, which was not adhered to in this case.
Penalties for false documentation under Section 7-A(2) of the AP GST Act are valid, and revisions under Section 22(1) cannot address factual disputes.
The main legal point established is that penalty can be imposed for deliberate fraud or misinformation by the Assessee under Section 61 of the RVAT Act, 2003.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 61 of the RVAT Act, 2003 allows for the levy of penalty in cases of active concealment and deliberate fraud or misinformation by the A....
Intention to evade tax must be established for imposing penalties under tax laws; previous acceptance of similar submissions indicates no intent to evade.
The court established that valid documentation and absence of intent to evade tax are crucial for imposing penalties under tax law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
