TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n allowing the appeal. It is unfortunate that the question is not framed with any specificity. The facts are in a narrow compass. The Commercial Tax Officer, Narasaraopet, by his assessment order dated March 14, 1983, assessed the turnover of the assessee. Long afterwards, i.e., more than 3 years after the assessment order was made, another Commercial Tax Officer at Narasaraopet issued a show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the very same assessing authority and secondly, that penalty proceedings were not initiated simultaneously by the very same assessing authority. We find that the decision in Nagabandi Mallaiah's case [1988] 70 STC 160 (AP), fully answers the question raised in this tax revision case in favour of the petitioner. This Court held: "The language employed in section 14(2) of the Act admits of n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in addition to tax assessed a penalty as specified in sub-section (8) on the turnover that was not disclosed by the dealer in his return." This provision makes it very clear that the point of time when the penalty should be imposed is the time when the assessment order is made. Admittedly, on the facts of the present case, penalty was sought to be levied three years after the assessment order wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessing authority may also direct the dealer to pay penalty in addition to the tax assessed. In the present case it was not stated under what sub-section of section 14 the penalty was imposed. However, whether the penalty sought to be imposed was under sub-section (2) or under sub-section (3) or under sub-section (4) of section 14, the result is the same. In view of the fact that the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
