The High Court considered the legality of a penalty imposed u/s...
High Court Reinstates Trial Court's Decision: Penalty Under Bihar Finance Act Deemed Unnecessary for Goods Transport.
📋
Contents
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Plus +
Source NTF
Summary
Similar
Note
Bookmark
Share
https://www.taxtmi.com/hi...
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
ExpandCollapse
VAT and Sales TaxJune 10, 2024Case LawsHC
The High Court considered the legality of a penalty imposed u/s 31(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, due to the want of Form 28B. The issue was whether the defendants were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,68,301.58 paisa with interest to the plaintiff. The Court found that the delay in filing the appeal was properly discussed by the appellate court and held that the objection of delay had no merit. The Commercial Tax Tribunal's decision on the penalty was deemed improper as Form 28B was not required for transportation of goods. The trial court ordered a refund of the penalty amount with interest, which the first appellate court overturned based on extraneous facts. The defendants did not dispute the penalty deposit, and it was found that no contravention of the Act had occurred. The penalty was deemed to be refunded based on equity and justice principles. The High Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment and upheld the trial court's decision, allowing the appeal.
The High Court considered the legality of a penalty imposed u/s 31(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, due to the want of Form 28B. The issue was whether the defendants were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,68,301.58 paisa with interest to the plaintiff. The Court found that the delay in filing the appeal was properly discussed by the appellate court and held that the objection of delay had no merit. The Commercial Tax Tribunal's decision on the penalty was deemed improper as Form 28B was not required for transportation of goods. The trial court ordered a refund of the penalty amount with interest, which the first appellate court overturned based on extraneous facts. The defendants did not dispute the penalty deposit, and it was found that no contravention of the Act had occurred. The penalty was deemed to be refunded based on equity and justice principles. The High Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment and upheld the trial court's decision, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick
reference only.