TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impose penalty under Section 9-B(3) of the OST Act not exceeding two times only of the tax so realized. It is also noticed by the Tribunal that, the power to impose penalty exceeding two times of the tax lies only with the Commissioner. However, in the present case the STO proposed to impose penalty not exceeding two times the tax. This was not to be disputed in the Tribunal by the counsel for the Petitioner. Consequently, as per the Circular in force, the STO did not exceed his jurisdiction in initiating the penalty proceeding. The question framed by this Court by the order dated 10th January, 2007 is answered with the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Department and against the Petitioner assessee by holding that the STO was within j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks of account before the STO within a period of two months from the date of service of notice on it by the assessing STO and to complete the proceeding under Section 9-B(3) of the OST Act afresh within three months thereafter. If the Assessee failed to produce the details and the books of account within that period, the STO was free to draw an adverse inference. 4. While admitting the present petitions on 10th January 2007, the following question of law was framed for consideration by this Court: Whether the Sales Tax Officer is within his jurisdiction in imposing penalty u/S. 9-B(3) of the O.S.T. Act, 1947 in absence of any delegation of power by the Commissioner of Sales Tax after substitution of Section 9-B(3) with effect from 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -B (3) of the OST Act. In particular it was contended that since there was no delegation of power under Section 9- B(3) of the OST Act by the Commissioner, initiation of the penalty proceeding was without jurisdiction. 9. The Petitioner also contended that under Section 9-B(3) of the OST Act, as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 12th March, 1983, the STO could impose penalty of a sum not exceeding twice the amount of tax so realized. After 12th March, 1983, under the amended provision the Commission had power to impose penalty of a sum not exceeding thrice the amount of tax so realized. It was contended that the said power was not exercised by the Commissioner after that date. 10. By order dated 28th December, 1997 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Kolkata-II (1977) 39 STC 478 (SC) in support of the proposition that the Petitioner s request for examining witnesses was not even considered by the STO. Mr. Ray submitted that it was incumbent on the Tribunal to have invalidated the entire initiation of the penalty proceedings on the above ground. 15. At the outset, it must be noted that the question framed by this Court while admitting the revision petitions was clearly limited to delegation of power by the Commissioner of Sales Tax to the STO and the effect of the amendment to Section 9-B (3) of the OST Act with effect from 12th March, 1983. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to entertain any other plea advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
