TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risonment and, opposite party No. 3, to pay a fine of Rs. 50 (fifty) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. Opposite party No. 1 is a limited company under the name and style of M/s. East India Coal Co. Ltd. incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its office at Jorapokhar, Police Station Jealogora, District Dhanbad and opposite party No. 2 is the managing agent of the above-named company, opposite, party No. 3 is the principal officer of opposite party No. 2 which is a firm under the name and Style of M/s. Jardine Handerson Ltd. and is responsible for the management and administration of the firm. A petition of complaint was filed by the petitioner before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case. It will appear from annex. 3 to this application that the return for the financial year 1967-68 had to be submitted by the opposite parties by April 30, 1968, but it was submitted on August 22, 1968. Thus the opposite parties made a delay of 114 days in submitting the return. It is not disputed that this constituted a contravention of s. 206 of the Act making the opposite parties liable to punishment under s. 276(b) of the Act. It will also appear from the chart annexed from May 1, 1967 to April 1, 1968, that the opposite parties deducted the amount of tax from the salaries of their employees on different dates, but made default in depositing the said amount to the account of the Central Govt., as provided in the Act, and thereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a return and had also deposited Rs. 4,409 as penal interest for the delayed payment. It has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that it was after considering these circumstances that the penalty had been imposed by the learned Munsif-Magistrate, and, since in the circumstances, the sentences could not be said to be lenient or unreasonable, there is no ground for interference with that order in this revision. It may, however, be stated that the chart appended to annex. 2 referred to above, shows that the opposite parties had been committing defaults in depositing the money realised by them, from the salaries of their employees to the account of the government since May 1, 1967, to April 1, 1968, and during the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 during the different periods of defaults made in respect of these amounts. It roughly comes to Rs. 6,792. As already indicated above, the maximum punishment for the default in filing the return will come to Rs. 1,140 only. Even if we ignore this item, there was no justification for allowing the opposite parties to be let off without penalties of at least that amount, which they had earned or are expected to have earned as interest from the money kept at their disposal, which really belonged to the government for the period during which they did not deposit the same in contravention of the law. Even if we take into consideration the fact that they had been subjected to pay a penalty of Rs. 4,409 to the I.T. Department, as stated by them i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
