TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y that the appeal was not competent, because the assessee had not deposited in full the admitted tax. The appellate authority found that a sum of Rs. 620 was refundable to the assessee from the department. In its opinion the shortage of three paise could very well be adjusted against the refund due to the assessee and as such the appeal could not be said to be incompetent. The department was not satisfied and went up in revision. The revising authority has upheld the objection of the department and has held that because the assessee had failed to pay in full the admitted tax, the appeal had been wrongly entertained by the appellate authority. The present reference has been submitted by the revising authority at the instance of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paise would have been wiped out. We are of opinion that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the revising authority was not right in taking the view that because of the shortage in the deposit of the admitted tax, the appeal was incompetent. Section 29 of the Act deals with refund. That section provides that the assessing authority shall refund to a dealer any amount of tax, fees or other dues paid in excess of the amount due from him under the Act. The proviso attached to this section reads: "Provided that the amount found to be refundable shall first be applied towards the tax or any other amount outstanding against the dealer and only the balance, if any, shall be refunded." This proviso, in our opinion, clearly casts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case the assessee should be held not to have committed any default in the payment of the admitted tax. The shortage is only of three paise which is much too trivial to be taken notice of. There is a well-known maxim de minimis non curat lex which means that the law does not take notice of trifles. An illustration of this principle is to be found in section 95 of the Indian Penal Code. That section reads: "95. Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm." Herbert Broom has stated this principle in his book "Legal Maxims" in the following words (9th Edit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on applied, the land taken from each tenureholder was much too small to be of any consequence and the advantage that accrued to the tenure-holders was far greater than any loss suffered by them. The application of this rule is also to be found in the decision of a Full Bench of this court of which one of us (Honourable Dwivedi, J.) was a member in the case of B. Malik v. Union of India(1). In paragraph 10 of the judgment it was observed: "So Parliament cannot alter or change the rights in respect of pension vesting in him at the date of his appointment to the detriment, or loss or injury to the interest of the Judge. But every sort of alteration or change will not, I think, be to his disadvantage. Only such alteration or change as will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
