APHC010060032019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TAX REVISION CASE NO: 7/2022 Between: The State Of Andhra Pradesh M/s Raja Rajeswari Military Hotel Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY TAX REVISION CASE NO: 7/2022 The State Of Andhra Pradesh AND M/s Raja Rajeswari Military Hotel ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3516] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT 2 HBKM,J & HVN,J TREVC.No.7 of 2022 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the petitioner. 2. This tax revision case arises against the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in T.A.No.70 of 2009, dated 18.07.2018, wherein, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent herein, which is as under: “The appellant filed AA9 returns, which is meant for the dealers whose turnover is less than Rs.10 lakhs in a year. The appellant contended that they were under the view that ONGC was deducting tax under TDS and paying to the Department and therefore, they did not show this turnover in the returns and appellants furnished returns to the Income Tax Department where by disclosing the receipts on this turnover. Moreover, AA has done best judgment assessment only after considering the books of accounts of the appellant. When such is the case, AA for doing best judgment assessment he would have rejected the books of accounts and finalized the assessment. The said suppressed turnover was already recorded in their books of accounts and assessment was done on such turnover only with no addition. Appellant rightly relied on the M/s. S.G. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons [reported in 28 STC 700] where in it is held that penalty can be levied if, turnovers are recorded in books of accounts are found to be false. Appellant pleaded ignorance and submits that they paid all the sales taxes dues to the Department. Facts being so, the levying penalty at five times under Section-14(8)(a) is not proper since AA had not established the wilfulness as the part of the appellant to avoid the taxes. In the case of M/s. KC Builders & another Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [reported in 265 ITR 562], it is held that “A penalty under Section-27(1)(iii) may be imposed, when it is proved that the assessee has consciously made the concealment or furnished inaccurate 3 HBKM,J & HVN,J TREVC.No.7 of 2022 particulars of his income. In the instant case, the appellants reported the said turnover in their books of accounts and also reported to the IT Department. They were under the impression that ONGC was deducting the TDS and remitting the taxes to the Department and hence they need not disclose the turnover to the C.T. Department. In view of this observation, we are of the opinion that there are no circumstances to levy penalty on higher side and AA ought to have levied penalty not exceeding one half of the amount of tax under Section-14(8)(b) as held by ADC. Hence, the appeal is allowed by upholding the orders of ADC by setting aside revision orders of RA.” 3. The value of the disputed tax, even according to the petitioner is Rs.2,39,874/- (Penalty). 4. Since there is no question of law to be decided in this case and as there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal below, we see no reason to interfere with the same. 5. Hence, the Tax Revision Case is dismissed. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 05.02.2025 MDP