9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (9) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the fourth quarterly return. It is not disputed that gross turnover disclosed was correct. But from the account books it appeared that the amount of sales tax was Rs. 1,47,773.98, but the assessee deposited, along with the return, only Rs. 91,224.00. In appeal, the explanation of the assessee that no tax was realised on purchases on own account was accepted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d illegally, is not penal. The circumstance that the assessee had realised tax and not deposited it should not have weighed in deciding the offence of deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars. Section 15-A(1)(b), during the relevant period 1971-72, read as under: "If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer, (b) has concealed the particulars of his turnover or deliberately fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iberate act the dealer evaded tax in one and postponed payment of tax in the other. Both actions were penal and there was no reason to distinguish between gross and net turnover for purposes of this sub-section. The argument is Do doubt attractive but does not appear to be sound. The word "turnover" has been defined in the Act. It has to be understood in the same sense. It determines the liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticulars in the return could not be said to be deliberate so as to attract penalty. The learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on State of Madras v. S.G. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons[1971] 28 S.T.C. 700 (S.C.). It was held that penalty for incomplete or incorrect return can be imposed only in case of best judgment assessment. It is true that the provisions of the Madras Sales Tax Act were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
