TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against Ext.P2 does not stand the test of law - More so, when the respondent has asserted in the statement, that the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner is 'not penalty' but the 'tax' element - With regard to the amount demanded in respect of the assessment year 2005-06, it is only a sum of Rs. 3,855 - With regard to this extent as well, there is no such challenge raised in the Wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y holding that the penalty proceedings were not correct or sustainable, which accordingly were cancelled vide Ext P3. The learned counsel submits that, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for demanding the amount as shown in Ext.P2, even after cancellation of the penalty vide Ext.P3 and hence is under challenge. 2. The learned standing counsel for the department, with reference to the stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re subject to further challenge by filing statutory appeal, which however did not turn to be fruitful to the full extent, as the said appeal was allowed only in part, as per order dated 21-12-2006. 3. By virtue of the order passed by the appellate authority, the original tax liability to an extent of Rs. 9,35,624 was brought down to just '1/3' of Rs. 3,51,794. The petitioner did not choose to fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sserted in the statement, that the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner is 'not penalty' but the 'tax' element. With regard to the amount demanded in respect of the assessment year 2005-06, it is only a sum of Rs. 3,855. With regard to this extent as well, there is no such challenge raised in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
