VAT

Penalty u/s 64 of RVAT Act for non furnishing revised Form VAT-40E

Rajasthan Commercial Tax Department asks authorities to initiate penalty u/s 64 of RVAT Act for non furnishing revised Form VAT-40E within stipulated time

Government of Rajasthan
Commercial Taxes Department

No. F16 (375) Tax / VAT / CCT / 13 / Pt.-II/ 745

Dated: 23.01.2018

All Deputy Commissioners (Adm.)/
All Assessing Authorities
Commercial Taxes Department

CIRCULAR 01/2019

Sub: Regarding furnishing of revised Form VAT-40E

Rule 40(8A) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 envisages that every awarder holding an Awarder Identification Certificate, shall submit a statement in Form VAT-40E electronically through the official website of the department to the officer authorized under sub-rule (l),within thirty days of the end of the quarter. Where the awarder fails to furnish the statement as mentioned above, the said officer after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, may impose penalty under section 64 of the Act.

Similarly, Rule 40(8B) provides that where an awarder discovers any omission or error in the Form VAT-40E furnished by him, he may furnish a revised Form VAT-40E within three months from the close of the relevant year.

However, it has been observed that a number of such awarders failed to revise the same in time due to ignorance of changes made in the said rule on dated 08.03.2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2016.

The provisions of sub rule 40(8B) does not prevent to proceed to revise VAT40E who failed to revise the same within the stipulated period. Therefore, it is hereby directed that the concern assessing authorities may :-

 1. Identify such awarders of their territorial jurisdiction.

2. Initiate action for levy of penalty in accordance with the provisions of Section 64 of the RVAT Act, 2003 for not revising VAT-40E in the stipulated time and pass a speaking order in this regard.

(Dr. Preetam B. Yashvant)
Comissioner,
Commercial Taxes Department
Rajasthan, Jaipur

----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • GST

HC frowns at Provisional attachment orders under GST not lifted on expiry of one year

High Court frowns at Provisional attachment orders passed u/s 83(1) GST lifted only their illegality being questioned In a recent…

49 mins ago
  • Income Tax

In Faceless assessment grant of opportunity of personal hearing not optional for AO

In Faceless assessment grant of opportunity of personal hearing is not optional at discretion of the Assessing Officer its waiver…

2 hours ago
  • Income Tax

CBDT Guidelines for compulsory selection of return for complete scrutiny FY 2024-25

CBDT Guidelines for compulsory selection of return for compulsory scrutiny during FY 2024-25   CBDT Guidelines for compulsory selection of…

19 hours ago
  • Income Tax

High Court quashed reopening on the incorrect presumption that no return filed

High Court quashed reopening of assessment on the incorrect presumption that no return of income had been filed Re-assessment order…

20 hours ago
  • Income Tax

In absence of mala fide intention bank should not be treated as assessee in default

In absence of mala fide intention bank should not be treated as assessee in default for late deduction and deposit…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Whether bank account was fraudulently open in the name of assessee is question of fact

Whether bank account was fraudulently open in the name of assessee is question of fact. High Court declined to entertain…

4 days ago