2009 (6) TMI 939

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessee (dealer) seeks to challenge the revisionary order dated April 24, 2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore (annexure P1) which in turn affirms the penalty order dated October 3, 2002 passed by assessing officer under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 against the petitioner. None appeared for the petitioner. Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... impugned order. In our opinion, on the facts brought on record, no case for imposition of any penalty on the petitioner is made out and hence, both the orders impugned herein are liable to be quashed. The only complaint made against the petitioner by the taxing authority was that in place of submission of form No. 75, they submitted form No. 86 on the check-post at the time of clearing their go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion of penalty, namely, their conduct or/and mens rea is evading payment of tax by taking recourse to illegal methods such as making of false declaration in the returns or by filing forged or/and bogus documents, etc. We respectfully apply this principle of law to the facts of this case and accordingly, hold that the facts taken note of supra may at best amount to committing technical or venial .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X