TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to be imposed is as long as seventeen years i.e. from 22nd October, 1975 to 30th June, 1992. Clearly the legislative intent was not to empower the Department to levy penalty in one go for a period of seventeen continuous years. Such an interpretation would render the power unreasonable and arbitrary. Even though no limitation period as such has been indicated in Section 10-A of the CST Act it does not mean that the Department can decide arbitrarily to invoke to the power thereunder to levy penalty at any time of its choosing. In the light of the law that such power must be exercised within a reasonable time, the impugned order seeking to levy penalty in one go for a period of 17 years is unsustainable in law - Considering that the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pts notice on behalf of Opposite Party ( Department ). 3. Since the point involved in this petition is short, the matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 4. One of the principal grounds of challenge is that the period of seventeen years could have been clubbed together for imposing penalty on the Petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order of the STO is bad in law. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although there is no prescribed period of limitation under Section 10-A of the CST Act for imposition of penalty, it has to be interpreted in a reasonable manner and considering that the maximum period for reopening of an assessment under the CST Act is five years, no penalty should be l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of the same facts on which a penalty has been imposed under this section.] 4[(2) The penalty imposed upon any dealer under subsection (1) shall be collected by the Government of India in the manner provided in sub-section (2) of section 9- (a) in the case of an offence falling under clause (b) or clause (d) of section 10, in the State in which the person purchasing the goods obtained the form prescribed for the purposes of sub-section (4) of section 8 in connection with the purchase of such goods; (b) in the case of an offence falling under clause (c) of section 10, in the State in which the person purchasing the goods should have registered himself if the offence had not been committed. 8. While on a plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod. What would be reasonable period, would depend upon the facts of each case. Whenever a question regarding the inordinate delay in issuance of notice of demand is raised, it would be open to the assessee to contend that it is bad on the ground of delay and it will be for the relevant officer to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case notice or demand for recovery was made within reasonable period. No hard and fast rules can be laid down in this regard as the determination of the question will depend upon the facts of each case. 10. Likewise, in Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act observed as und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
