Decided on May 06,1998

Padma Coconut Company Appellant


M.Ramakrishna, Chairman - (1.) THESE two appeals are filed aggrieved against the orders of levy of penalty sustained by the first appellate authority relating to the assessment years 1987 -88 & 1988 -89. The appellant in T.A. No. 581/97 is M/s. Padma Coconut Company and the appellant in T.A. No. 582/97 is M/s. Padmaja Coconut Company. Since the issue is common in both the appeals, they are heard together and are disposed off by this common order. The details of the appeals are as follows:
(2.) THE facts that gave rise to the filing of these two appeals in brief are that the assessing authority originally passed the final assessment order for the assessment year 1987 -88 on 30.6.1988, which order was revised by his successor vide proceedings dated 9.2.1990 under Section 14(4) of the APGST Act and levied tax of Rs. 15,698/ - on the disputed turnover of Rs. 3,92,450/ -, after revising the said order, the same assessing authority passed the penalty order under Procgs. No. 11690/87 -88 in PR No. 7/89 -90, dated 7.7.1990 under Sec. 7A of the APGST Act and levied a penalty of Rs. 47,094/ -. Similarly for the Asst. Year 1988 -89, the assessing authority originally passed the final asst. order on 12.6.1989 and subsequently his successor revised and passed order dated 9.2.1990 under Sec. 14(4) of the APGST Act and levied tax of Rs. 5,447/ - on the disputed turnover of Rs. 1,36,180/ - invoking the provisions of Section 7A of the APGST Act by order dated 7.7.1990 he levied a penalty of Rs. 19,092/ -. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant preferred appeals before the Appellate D.C.(CT), Warangal Division. There is no dispute between the parties that the learned A.D.C., Warangal in the impugned orders dated. 16.10.1996 since the appellant did not turn up inspite of granting enough opportunity, he dismissed both the appeals. Hence, the present appeals are filed before us. The point for consideration is whether the penalty orders cannot be sustained.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned authorised representative for the appellant that the very Appellate Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeals preferred by the appellants and remanded the matter. That being so, the penalty appeals also ought to have been remanded back to the assessing authority because the quantum of penalty depends upon the quantum of amounts sustained in the assessment orders. He relied upon the decision reported in : (1983) 53 STC 148 in the case of M/s. Ramkishan Kapoor & Company vs. State of Haryana and Others.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.