AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard Shri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The revisionist is a Government of India Corporation. They candidly admit that while claiming the I.T.C. on certain goods their claims did not exclude the amount which they had already claimed, as a result of which a penalty has been imposed under Section 54(1)(19) of the Act on it.
The penalty under the above provisions has been imposed to the maximum extent. No reason has been given by the Tribunal for imposing the maximum penalty. The return as filed by the assessee has been accepted by the department.
The assessee being a Government of India undertaking cannot afford to play fraud with the revenue at all. But the Tribunal while imposing maximum penalty should have given some reasons for imposing the maximum penalty.
The matter is, therefore, sent back to the Tribunal to reconsider the quantum of penalty after giving to the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing. The matter may be re-decided by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before it.
As a matter of abundant caution, the assessee shall deposit half of the penalty imposed on it till the decision is taken by the Tribunal. Due adjustment may be made as is provided under the law of any amount which has already been paid.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.