9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") made by the applicant-assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion: "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that penalty of Rs. 4,000 imposed under section 43(1) of the Act was proper when the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome clear. As such, the assessee was under bona fide impression that tax separately collected did not form part of consideration or price of goods. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected the submission of the assessee and maintained the order of penalty by its order dated 30th March, 1982, passed in Appeal No. 196-PBR-79. 5.. On an application under section 44(l) of the Act filed by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as with a guilty mind on the part of the assessee. The provisions of section 43(1) as it stood in the year 1961 in unamended form, however, envisaged mens rea to attract penalty. This section 43(1) in 1961 empowered the Commissioner or appellate authority to impose penalty if the Commissioner or the appellate authority in the course of any proceeding under the Act was satisfied that a dealer had d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention that the assessee had no intention to deceive the department on the facts and circumstances of this case and he cannot be said to have deliberately concealed his turnover or furnished false return so as to become liable for penalty under section 43(1) of the Act as it existed in the year 1961. 8.. In view of the discussion aforesaid, we are clearly of the opinion that the assessee was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
