Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (8) TMI 827

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sment years. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from W.P. No. 4418 of 2008. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of purchase and sale of timber. It has been claimed that the petitioner had primarily dealt in tax-paid goods, i.e., purchase of timber from local registered dealers for its resale in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner was initially assessed to commercial tax vide order dated December 19, 2000. On the basis of some third party information, claimed to have been collected by the authorities of the Commercial Tax Department, it was maintained by the Department that the assessee had imported babool wood, punch and round pack, etc., from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh for its resale in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal, the petitioner also claimed to have approached the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, by way of an application under section 62(2) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), for exercise of its suo motu powers and requested the Commissioner to issue some necessary directions. The Division Bench took note of the filing of the revision petition and consequently chose to dispose of L.P.A. No. 290 of 2002 vide order dated November 13, 2002 and directions were issued to the Commissioner to decide the second revision petition filed by the petitioner. It has been stated by the petitioner that in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax examined the m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . An order dated April 4, 2002 was passed by the assessing authority imposing a penalty upon the petitioner. The aforesaid penalty order has been appended as annexure P9 with the present petition. Against the order, annexure P9, the petitioner appears to have preferred a revision petition. The aforesaid revision petition was heard by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, who, vide an order dated February 11, 2003, set aside the penalty order and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh determination. Various observations were made by the revisional authority with regard to the pendency of the controversy before the High Court. The assessing authority was directed to take note of the entire facts and circumstances of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... maintained that the imposition of penalty against the petitioner, at this stage, when even the assessment order had not attained finality, since the revision petition against the said assessment order was yet pending before the revisional authority, therefore, the imposition of penalty was wholly uncalled for and unjustified. The claim made by the petitioner has been contested by the respondents by filing a detailed reply. In the reply, the facts with regard to the original assessment orders, the appellate orders, the remand orders and the pendency of the assessment proceedings in revision petition before the revisional authority are not disputed. However, it has been maintained by the respondents that the assessment proceedings under sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... see-firm is wholly redundant and without any meaning. The aforesaid view cannot be taken by this court. The revisional powers available to a revisional authority authorize the authority to set aside the appellate as well as the revisional order, if a case for that course is made out by the assessee. The revisional authority may choose not to interfere in the matter. However, that would be a complete discretion and judicial adjudication by the revisional authority. This court would not comment on the merits of the controversy as far as merits of the revision petition are concerned. However, it remains undisputed that in case the revision petition filed by the petitioner were to be accepted, then it would knock the very basis for imposition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates