9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? ii) Whether the Honble STAT A.P., Hyderabad is justified in setting aside the orders of the ACD(CT), Secunderabad Division? Heard the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material placed on record. At the outset, the above questions are of general nature and they do not raise any real questions of law, however a perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that the issue involved is with respect to imposition of penalty on the assessee under Section 10(A)(1) of the Central Sales-Tax Act (for brevity the Act). Section 10(A) of the Act reads as under: (1) If any person purchasing goods is guilty of an offence under clause (b) or clause (c) or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, on the ground that their alleged transit, sales, covered by CST Act, the assessing authority did not impose tax under CST Act also on the disputed transactions. This made the appellant not filing the appeal against those assessment orders. However, it is also the case of the appellant that this transit sale is covered by a second sale coming under Section 6(2). The assessing authority has not imposed tax on the appellant that there was no transfer of interest in goods that were used in works contract has not accepted the case of the appellant that there was a transit sale covered by Section 6(2) of the APGST Act. It is also significant to notice that the A.C.T.O., who initiated the proceedings imposing pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from that the Tribunal also found that there was no intention on the part of the assessee which is a requirement at the relevant point of time for levy of penalty. The Tribunal also relied on the principles laid down by this Court in Ravi Enterprises v. State of Andhra Pradesh . Further, the transaction relates to the assessment year 1983-1984 whereas the penalty proceedings came to be initiated on 09.08.1992 i.e. after a long lapse of nine years. In the light of the findings of fact the Tribunal had considered various aspects on record and gave a finding which is not challenged before this Court. The Tribunal, being the last finding authority and in the absence of such conclusive finding being challenged raising a specific qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
