THE COMMISSIONER, VAT Vs. A.K. WOOLLEN INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. APPL.17882/2014.

(2.) THE question of law sought to be urged by the Revenue in this case is whether the DVAT Tribunal acted correctly in holding that in the absence of rules under Section 59(2) of the DVAT Act, 2004 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") , penalty action under Section 86(14) for non -compliance with Sections 59(1) , (2) and (3) could not have been initiated and taken. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the Revenue and further considered the record. The DVAT Tribunal set aside the order of the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) and the Value Added Tax Officer (VATO) on the ground that sufficient opportunity had not been provided in the facts of the case to justify imposition of a mandatory penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - under Section 86(14) of the Act. However, the DVAT Tribunal also stated in the impugned order in para 9 that since rules under Section 59(2) had not been yet been framed, penalty action was not justified. The DVAT Tribunal's observations in this regard are as follows:

(3.) SECTION 59 reads as follows: