INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX and SALES TAX and Another vs VELIMALAI RUBBER CO. LTD.

K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :

The respondents in Original Petition No. 573 of 1989 (Revenue) are the appellants in the appeal. The petitioner in the original petition is the respondent herein. The respondent-company is an assessee under the Kerala Agrl. IT Act. The prayer in the original petition was to quash Ext. P-4 order as confirmed in Ext. P-6. Exhibit P-4 is an order dt. 9th March, 1988, by which an amount of Rs. 42,700 was imposed as penalty on the assessee under s. 17A(3) of the Act. It was confirmed by the Commr. of Agrl. IT in Ext. P-6. The learned single Judge [see Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax and Another, ] quashed Exts. P-4 and P-6 and held that s. 17A(3) of the Agrl. IT Act is not attracted in the instant case. The respondents in the original petition have come up in appeal.

The short question that arises for consideration is whether penalty under s. 17A(3) of the Act is attracted for the belated filing of the return. In this case, the return under the Agrl. IT Act was filed after the due date. The question that arises for consideration is whether for filing the return after the due date, penalty under s. 17A(3) of the Act is leviable.

Sec. 17A(3) of the Act is as follows :

"If any person fails to pay the tax or any part thereof in accordance with the provisions of sub-s. (1), the assessing authority may direct that a sum equal to two per cent of such tax or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be recovered from him by way of penalty for every month during which the default continues :

Provided that, before levying any such penalty, the person shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

The learned single Judge held that s. 17A(3) of the Act contemplates levy of penalty for non-payment of admitted tax or for non-payment of part of the admitted tax at the time of filing the return. On a plain reading of the s. 17A(3) of the Act, we concur with the learned single Judge, in the reasoning and conclusion aforesaid. The order levying penalty, Ext. P-4, and the order confirming the same, Ext. P-6, to the extent they uphold the penalty levied under s. 17A(3) of the Act for the belated filing of the return, are unjustified in law. The learned single Judge was justified in quashing Exts. P-4 and P-6. We concur with the learned single Judge and hold that the appeal is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.