TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58 and carries on business in cement, iron hoops, cloth, etc., at Sheelnath Camp, Indore. 3.. The petition relates to the assessment period from 1st April, 1972 to 31st March, 1973. In the course of assessment proceedings before the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Indore, the petitioner raised an issue regarding levy of tax on iron hoops (iron strips) and claimed that the same can be taxed only at the concessional rate of 3 per cent on the ground that they were declared goods. The assessing authority, as per annexure PI, which is an order dated 11th May, 1975 rejected the contention of the petitioner and levied tax at the enhanced rate of 7 per cent. Another grievance of the petitioner was that he could not submit the periodical sales tax re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the conflict of opinion expressed in the various judgments of this Court, referred the matter for the decision by the Full Bench. Accordingly the Full Bench by its decision reported in [1983] 53 STC 120 (FB) (Govindji Jamunadas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P.) came to the conclusion that iron hoops, which are steel strips of different sizes rivetted and painted and used for tying bales of cloth, are declared goods falling within section 14(iv)(d)(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and are taxable at 3 per cent under entry 5 of Part I of Schedule II to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 which applies to assessments even prior to 1st April, 1983. He, therefore, submitted that in view of this Full Bench decision the petitioner coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. 8.. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that in the present case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any evidence or material placed on record to that effect. It is also clear from the impugned order that no reasons have been assigned for imposing the penalty nor any mala fides as such have been attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, even though the respondents had the authority and the jurisdiction to levy penalty, depending on facts and circumstances of every case, they have not in the present case applied their mind judiciously nor have they taken all the relevant circumstances into consideration for imposing the penalty of Rs. 2,000 which consequently cannot be sustained in law. 11.. In the result this petition is allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned orders annexure A passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Indor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
