TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to as "the Act"), the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion: "Whether under the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty under section 17(3) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, could not be imposed on the assessee at the appeal stage?" 2.. The material facts giving rise to this refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee had filed revised return, penalty under section 43(1) of the Act could not have been imposed on the assessee as laid down in [1974] VKN 353 (National Garage, Nagpur v. President, Board of Revenue, M.P.). The Deputy Commissioner, however, held that penalty under section 17(3) of the Act could be imposed on the assessee and penalty was accordingly imposed on the assessee. The assessee thereup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Food Corporation of India v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh), it has been held by this Court that while exercising powers under section 38(5) of the Act, the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to impose penalty for the first time. In view of this decision, the Board was justified in holding that the penalty under section 17(3) of the Act could not have been imposed on the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
