Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Thakur Savedekar and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case Number Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 12 of 1978
Judge
Reported in[1981]48STC293(MP)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentThakur Savedekar and Co.
Appellant Advocate S.R. Joshi, Government Adv.
Respondent Advocate Y.I. Mehta, Adv.
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. .....question of law to this court for its opinion.3. at the time of hearing of this reference, learned counsel for the department conceded that the question, as framed by the board did not bring out the real issue involved in this case. the question is, therefore, reframed as under :whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the board was right in holding that imposition of penalty under section 43(1) of the act was not justified ?4. now, the finding of the board that the assessee had not concealed its turnover or had not filed a false return with dishonest intention is a finding based on the material on record. the board took into consideration the fact that revised return showing the additional turnover was voluntarily filed by the assessee before the assessment was.....
Judgment:

G.G. Sohani, J.

1. By this reference under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion :

Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty under Section 43 of the State Act was justified ?

2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, as set out in the statement of the case, are as follows : The assessee is a dealer in tendu patta, cotton-seeds, bidis, etc., and was assessed to sales tax for the Diwali year 1966-67 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The turnover shown in the original returns was Rs. 15,96,463.87. The assessee, however, submitted a revised return in which an additional turnover of Rs. 3,01,527 was shown. The assessing authority commenced penalty proceedings under Section 43 of the Act and held that the assessee had concealed his turnover of Rs. 3,01,527. In this view of the matter, penalty of Rs. 3,000 was imposed on the assessee under Section 43 of the Act. The appeal npreferred by the assessee before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was dismissed. On further appeal, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue held that from the material on record it was not proved that there was any intentional concealment of turnover by the assessee or that he had furnished a false return with dishonest intention. In this view of the matter the learned Member held that imposition of penalty under Section 43(1) of the Act was not called for. At the instance of the department, the Board has referred the aforesaid question of law to this Court for its opinion.

3. At the time of hearing of this reference, learned counsel for the department conceded that the question, as framed by the Board did not bring out the real issue involved in this case. The question is, therefore, reframed as under :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board was right in holding that imposition of penalty under Section 43(1) of the Act was not justified ?

4. Now, the finding of the Board that the assessee had not concealed its turnover or had not filed a false return with dishonest intention is a finding based on the material on record. The Board took into consideration the fact that revised return showing the additional turnover was voluntarily filed by the assessee before the assessment was finalised. Learned counsel for the department was unable to satisfy us that the finding of the Board was based on no evidence or was based on surmises. Under the circumstances, our answer to the question reframed by us is in the affirmative and against the department.

5. Reference answered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.


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