Telangana High Court
M/S.Ncl Industries Limited vs The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 12 February, 2025
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
TAX REVISION CASE No.200 of 2008
ORDER:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy)
The instant Tax Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner
under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,
1957 (for short, the 'APGST Act') challenging the order dated
15.07.2008, in T.A.No.672 of 2001, passed by Sales Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, the 'STAT').
2. Heard Mr. Siddarth Gilda, learned counsel, representing
Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned counsel for the respondent -
Department.
3. Vide the impugned order; the STAT has affirmed the order
passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad, dated
26.02.2001, in Appeal No.N/318/99-2000, who in turn had affirmed
the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad, for the
assessment year 1999-2000 so far as the imposition of penalty is
concerned.
4. The penalty was imposed as there as a delay of eight (08) days
on the part of the petitioner in submitting his assessment and for the
reason that there was eight (08) days delay; penalty was imposed in
accordance with Section 15(4) of the APGST Act. The said order stood
affirmed up till the stage of STAT, leading to filing of the instant
petition.
5. The question of law to be considered in this petition is "whether
the STAT was justified in upholding the levy of penalty under Section
15(4) of the APGST Act, though there was no absolute failure on the
part of the petitioner in remitting the taxes?"
6. We find that the said question of law already stands answered in
a Tax Revision Case filed by the Government itself i.e. Tax Revision
Case No.11 of 2007 and Batch, decided on 30.08.2023. In the said
judgment, the Division Bench of this High Court in paragraph Nos.18
to 20 has held as under, viz.,
"18. Upon considering the findings of the Tribunal, we further
find it fit to take note of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal as
has been enshrined in Section 21(4) of A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957. On
a plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that
the statute itself provides wide powers to the Tribunal while
hearing the appeal and they have got the powers as under:
"S.21.appeal to the Appellate Tribunal :
(1) to (3) xxxx
(4) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both
parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of
being heard-
(i) Confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the
assessment or the penalty or both; or
(ii) Set aside the assessment or the penalty,
or both, and direct the assessing authority to
pass a fresh order after such further inquiry
as may be directed; or
(iii) ....."
19. Given the said statutory provisions and powers conferred
upon the Tribunal, it was within the powers of the Tribunal to
look into the reasons which prevented the assessee in timely
payment of tax and the delay also was too short a period so as
to infer that the delay was with any mala fide intention.
20. Another fact which needs consideration is the fact that
penalty imposed is invoking the provisions under Section 15(4)
of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. The proviso to the said Section clearly
indicates that before passing of an order of penalty, the
authority concerned is required to issue a notice to the assessee
seeking his explanation as to the cause which led to the
delayed payment of tax. The very insertion of the aforesaid
Section 15(4) pre-supposes that upon a notice being issued
before penalty orders are passed, if the assessee was able to
provide plausible and justifiable reasons which led to the
delayed payment of tax it would be then within the discretion of
the authority to decide whether penalty at all is to be levied."
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual matrix, as also
the statutory provisions and also taking note of the fact that the delay
on the part of the petitioner herein in making assessment was only a
period of eight (08) days, the authority concerned ought to have taken
a liberal view.
8. Considering the powers which have been conferred upon the
authority concerned i.e. proviso to Section 15(4) of the APGST Act, so
also the power which is conferred upon STAT under Section 21 of the
APGST Act, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order
would not be sustainable and the same stands set aside / quashed.
The order of penalty as a consequence, also is set aside.
9. The Tax Revision Case is accordingly allowed. No costs.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
Date: 12.02.2025
GSD
