JAGADISH AGENCIES Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS tax revision case is filed by the dealer aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 636/88, dated 11.3.1993, whereunder the penalty levied was confirmed by the Tribunal under Section 14(8) of A.P.G.S.T. Act. The Petitioner in this tax revision case is a dealer in cosmetics and was an assessee on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer -II, Nellore. For the assessment year 1984 -85 the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nellore originally assessed the Petitioner on a net turnover of Rs. 71,738/ - relating to the sales of cosmetics. Subsequently, on the basis of the information revealed at the time of inspection of the business premises of the Petitioner on 15.9.1986 by the Commercial Tax Officer -II, Nellore, it was noticed from the verification of the account books relating to that assessment year that a turnover of Rs. 3,246/ - relating to sales of shampoo and a turnover of Rs. 86,991/ - relating to the purchases of cosmetics were not found entered in the ledger in the creditors account and the said turnovers were not accounted either in the monthly returns or at the time of check of the accounts. Therefore, the Commercial Tax Officer arrived at the sale value of those cosmetics by adding 20% as a gross profit and thus arrived at the suppressed turnover of Rs. 1,07,636/ - and the same was treated as escaped turnover willfully done by the assessee. While completing the assessment proceedings, the Commercial Tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 14(8) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act and proposing to levy five times the tax payable on the suppressed turnover. The Commercial Tax Officer levied the penalty at five times that of the tax due on the suppressed turnover. The Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner contending that there was no wilful suppression of any turnover and therefore, the levy of penalty under section 14(8) of the APGST Act is not justified. The first appellate authority confirmed the same and further appeal before the Tribunal was unsuccessful. Hence, the present revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the authorities are not justified in initiating and levying penalty at five times the tax that was levied on the alleged suppressed turnover. It is contended by the learned counsel that the alleged suppressed turnover was already recorded in the books of account and therefore there was no concealment on the part of the dealer. Hence, the levy of penalty is not just and proper. The learned counsel also contended that penalty was levied and sustained basing on the additions in the assessment of tax and therefore such levy of penalty and confirmation of the same by the appellate authority is not just and proper. The learned counsel also contended that in any case the levy of maximum penalty of five times the tax that was evaded is not just and proper. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of A.N. Cigarette Trading Company, Hyderabad v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( : (2000) 31 APSTJ, 142).