TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout confronting the report given by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer on 07/06/1991 without further verification or without bringing the same to the notice of the assessee-respondent, had imposed the penalty on 10/06/1991 within three days and therefore, the Tax Board, has rightly deleted the penalty. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that the matter may be restored for providing an opportunity now, but, it is too late to remand the matter since penalty was imposed in the year 1991 and almost 24 years have passed and, it is not appropriate to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer to grant a fresh opportunity now. Even otherwise it is essentially a finding of fact and no question of law can be said to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to Mumbai and it was inter State sale but the driver on interrogation stated that the goods were to be delivered at Jaipur. However, since there was discrepancy in the documents as well as version of the driver of the respondent. The Assessing Officer noticed that goods were being sent with the intention of evasion of tax and penalty under section 22A(7) at ₹ 27,673/- was imposed. 3. Dissatisfied with the imposition of penalty, the matter was carried in appeal and the DC (A) sustained the penalty. The respondent carried the matter in further appeal before the Tax Board who vide impugned order deleted the penalty. Hence this petition. 4. Ld. counsel for the revenue contended that discrepancy was noticed by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed the penalty on 10/06/1991 within three days and therefore, the Tax Board, in my opinion has rightly deleted the penalty. Principles of natural justice demand that not only the report of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer dt.07/06/1991 before imposing of the penalty or before passing of an order ought to have been provided to the assessee-respondent and thereafter appropriate order could have been passed. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that the matter may be restored for providing an opportunity now but in my view, it is too late to remand the matter since penalty was imposed in the year 1991 and almost 24 years have passed and in my view, it is not appropriate to restore the matter back to the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
