9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (6) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral Sales-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act), for the Diwali, year 1966 - 67. The gross turnover was determined as Rs. 3,54,77,682-66 and after allowing for deductions, the taxable turnover was determined as Rs. 10,35,970-68. Tax assessed was Rs.72,595-78. Penalty of Rs. 85,000 was imposed under s.8(2) of the Act, and Rs. 5,000 under s.43(1) of the Act. First appeal against the assessment prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8(2) of the Act when he had not given any declaration to the selling dealer, which in the case is the Forest Department. The learned assessing authority has observed that appellant had himself reported these purchases as from the Forest Department on concessional rate of tax, and therefore, it was incumbent on him to show that he had not made these purchases on declaration. It seems, however, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department and if they wish to prefer this claim they must furnish the declaration from the purchasing dealer. Since no declaration has been furnished, the purchasing dealer cannot be said to have contravened any of the conditions prescribed under the Rules. Learned counsel for the respondent argued in this context that there was nothing to prevent the assessee from giving such declaration to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so be noted in this context that the tax assessed was Rs. 72,595 while tax paid along with returns was only Rs. 94. Penalty was, therefore, justified and the amount is not excessive, considering that the purchase tax which was not paid by the assessee was Rs. 8,272.
The appeal is partly allowed. Penalty imposed under s.8(2) is set aside. Penalty imposed under s.43(1) is confirmed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
