9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is involved in the business of sale of scooters and motor cycles manufactured by the said company. Petitioner is a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "an Act"). For the year 1999-2000, the assessment was finalised by respondent No. 1, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax on March 28, 2003 vide order annexure P1 and it is held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is false and that it has not paid tax by furnishing false information. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for penalty under section 69 of the Act and notices were directed to be issued for penalty under section 69 of the Act. The notices were issued to the petitioner vide annexure P3. In reply to notice under section 69, petitioner contended that since he has filed an appeal against the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax for its production in the State of Madhya Pradesh and since the vehicles produced by the said firm is sold to the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to pay the entry tax. The said produced vehicles were entered into the local area, Jabalpur and were liable for the entry tax and affirmed the order imposing penalty under section 69 of the Act. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed earlier and the absence of rubber stamp is deliberate and is not accidental or negligent. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that revisional authority as well as assessing authority has not considered the liability settled by the Full Bench of this court. Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the revisional authority was satisfied that non-furnishing of bills containing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
