State of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Swamy and Company

V. Ramaswami, J.—In these two cases while revising the assessments of the dealer u/s 16, the assessing officer also levied penalty u/s

16(2). The Tribunal set aside the order of penalty while confirming the reassessment order in one case and reducing the escaped turnover in the

other case on the ground that there was no specific finding of wilful non-disclosure of the turnover as required u/s 16(2) of the Act. These revision

petitions have been filed challenging only that portion of the order of the Tribunal relating to setting aside the order of penalty. The Tribunal is not

correct in stating that the assessing officer had not given a finding of wilful non-disclosure of the taxable turnover. In fact, the assessing officer, after

discussing the anamath slips, which showed sales, clearly stated that the penalty is levied for proved suppression. The use of the word

suppression"" shows that what the assessing officer found was wilful non-disclosure. If it was not a wilful non-disclosure, the assessing officer

would have stated as merely omissions. The use of the word ""suppression"" clearly brings out the wilful nature of the non-disclosure and, therefore,

the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the penalty merely on the ground that there was no finding of wilful non-disclosure.

These two tax revision cases are accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal in so far as it related to the penalty is set aside. The revenue

will be entitled to its costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 150 in each.