TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tax Act, 1957 ("the APGST Act", for short). They question the action of the first respondent in these two writ petitions in collecting certain amounts towards tax and penalty of five times tax. The petitioner in W.P. No. 28057 of 1995 is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of gold and silver articles. In the affidavit of its proprietor given in support of the writ petition, it is sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner. He contends that the demand for tax and penalty and the collection of cheques for the sum of Rs. 56,658 is arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law. The petitioner in W.P. No. 28058 of 1995 is also a proprietary concern engaged in the business of gold and silver articles. Its proprietor gave an affidavit in support of the writ petition. He also states that on November 15, 1995, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner questions the collections made as arbitrary and that no notice and opportunity was given to it and no assessment was also made. However, we may note here itself that there is no convincing explanation as to how the petitioner paid Rs. 5,385 in cash through SBH Challan No. 620080 dated December 1, 1995. As per the averments in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, this was not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes does not seriously dispute that the demand of tax and five times penalty of Rs. 56,658 and Rs. 43,271 from the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 28057 and 28058 of 1995 respectively is without authority of law inasmuch as no assessments were made in that regard. Therefore, collection of the said amounts by way of cheques is on the face of it highly arbitrary and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of offences committed by them. Moreover, admittedly penalty by way of five times tax has been demanded from the petitioners which cannot be under section 32 of the APGST Act. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed with costs restricting the amount in the case of W.P. No. 28058 of 1995 to Rs. 43,271 and substituting the same for Rs. 48,656 in respect of which the petitioner sough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
