9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (4) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y shown as sales in the course of import and a deduction was accordingly claimed. The transaction according to the Sales Tax Officer, were of local sales. The Sales Tax Officer gave his reasons for his view and held that the claim was wrongly made and penalty under s.36(2)(c) was attracted. In an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner the levy of the penalty was challenged. The contain made before the Assistant Commissioner was that the turnover was shown in the returns as sales in the course import; this was done in goods faith, under a bona fide impression and in view of the judgment in the case of M/s.K.G. Khosla and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division, Madras(1). The Assistant Commissioner observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 S.T.C. 473. Certain principles were laid down in the said case for deciding as to the ingredients necessary for constituting a sale to be a sale in the course of import. It has to be remembered that the transactions in question with which we are concerned in the present case are of the period from 1st November, 1969 to 31st October, 1970. During this period it would appear that the dictum in M/s. K.G. Khosla's(1) case held the field. If an assessee holds a particular impression as regards the nature of a turnover on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court, then the impression would be one held bona fide. What has happened in the present case is that the Sales Tax Officer's order was passed on 5th July, 1975. A reference to the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no element of mens rea, or guilty mind, penalty was not attracted. In M/s Fragrance Flavour Corporation vs. The State of Maharashtra(6), the previous rulings of the Tribunal were considered and applied to the facts of the said case. In one of the previous rulings the Commissioner had passed an order in determination. Subsequently it had been confirmed by the Tribunal. However, the action of the assessee during the period before the verdict of the Tribunal was delivered, in treating the commodity differently from what the Tribunal and the Commissioner held, was considered to be due to a bona fide impression. In the case of M/s. Synoflor Company vs. The State of Maharashtra(1) and in the case of M/s. D.G. Boys and Co. vs. The state o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
