Skip to content


Jawahar Traders Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number Sales Tax Revision No. 275 of 1982
Judge
Reported in[1984]57STC299(All)
AppellantJawahar Traders
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax
Appellant Advocate Om Prakash, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 2. a penalty was imposed on the assessee under the provisions of section 15-a(1)(g) on 21st august, 1979, for having failed to obtain registration for the year 1975-76. when the notice of the proceedings was given to the assessee, the assessee submitted an explanation......was later converted into an appeal against an order imposing the penalty on the ground that the penalty imposed was illegal as under the law, as it then stood in 1975-76. section 15-a(1)(g) provided for a penalty amounting to rs. 4,800.6. the tribunal only examined the question as to whether the penalty imposed was in accordance with law or not. it found that a penalty of rs. 4,800 could have been imposed on the assessee according to the law as it then stood in 1975-76. the tribunal held that the penalty should not have been imposed under section 15-a(1)(g) as it stood on the date of the making of the order but should have been imposed under section 15-a(1)(g) as it then stood. it accordingly set aside the order of the sales tax officer and remanded the matter to the sales tax officer.....
Judgment:

B.N. Sapru, J.

1. This is an assessee's revision.

2. A penalty was imposed on the assessee under the provisions of Section 15-A(1)(g) on 21st August, 1979, for having failed to obtain registration for the year 1975-76. When the notice of the proceedings was given to the assessee, the assessee submitted an explanation.

3. The Sales Tax Officer while noticing the explanation, did not attach weight to it and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500.

4. The assessee made a representation but no representation lay against an order imposing a penalty.

5. The State filed a revision which was later converted into an appeal against an order imposing the penalty on the ground that the penalty imposed was illegal as under the law, as it then stood in 1975-76. Section 15-A(1)(g) provided for a penalty amounting to Rs. 4,800.

6. The Tribunal only examined the question as to whether the penalty imposed was in accordance with law or not. It found that a penalty of Rs. 4,800 could have been imposed on the assessee according to the law as it then stood in 1975-76. The Tribunal held that the penalty should not have been imposed under Section 15-A(1)(g) as it stood on the date of the making of the order but should have been imposed under Section 15-A(1)(g) as it then stood. It accordingly set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer and remanded the matter to the Sales Tax Officer to impose a proper penalty under the law.

7. In this revision, the assessee's grievance is that the assessee's explanation was not taken into account by the Tribunal while making the impugned order. It is true that the assessee had not appealed against the order of the Sales Tax Officer but, in an appeal by the State in which a higher penalty was sought to be imposed on the assessee, the assessee's version should also have been examined by the Tribunal. Nevertheless, in this revision no interference is required as the assessee's explanation will also be considered by the Sales Tax Officer who shall decide the matter in accordance with law. If the Sales Tax Officer finds that the explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, it shall impose the penalty in accordance with law.

8. In the result, the revision is dismissed. Their will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //