Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case Number M.C.C. No. 367 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1980]46STC489(MP)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentIndian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Appellant Advocate K.L. Goyal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate K.P. Khubchandani, Adv.
Cases ReferredJiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax
Excerpt:
.....statements under forms viii-b and xii-a as prescribed under sub-rule (4) of rule 15 along with the return furnished in form viii, in accordance with section 17(1) of the state act, was justified ? 2. the material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows :for the assessment year 1966-67, a penalty of rs. 20,000 was imposed on the assessee under section 17(3) of the act for failure to furnish along with the return a statement in form viii-b and a list in form xii-a. 3. the short question for consideration in this case is whether the board was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed on the assessee for failure to furnish along with the return statements in forms viii-b and xii-a as prescribed by rule 15(4) of the m. the question as to whether failure to furnish..........statements under forms viii-b and xii-a as prescribed under sub-rule (4) of rule 15 along with the return furnished in form viii, in accordance with section 17(1) of the state act, was justified ?2. the material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows : for the assessment year 1966-67, a penalty of rs. 20,000 was imposed on the assessee under section 17(3) of the act for failure to furnish along with the return a statement in form viii-b and a list in form xii-a. on appeal, the deputy commissioner of sales tax reduced the amount of penalty to rs. 5,000. on further appeal, the learned member of the board of revenue set aside the penalty. hence, at the instance of the commissioner, this reference has been made.3. the short question for consideration in this case is.....
Judgment:

G.G. Sohani, J.

1. By this reference under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, hereinafter called 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, levy of penalty under Section 17(3) of the State Act on account of failure to furnish statements under forms VIII-B and XII-A as prescribed under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 along with the return furnished in form VIII, in accordance with Section 17(1) of the State Act, was justified ?

2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows : For the assessment year 1966-67, a penalty of Rs. 20,000 was imposed on the assessee under Section 17(3) of the Act for failure to furnish along with the return a statement in form VIII-B and a list in form XII-A. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax reduced the amount of penalty to Rs. 5,000. On further appeal, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue set aside the penalty. Hence, at the instance of the Commissioner, this reference has been made.

3. The short question for consideration in this case is whether the Board was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed on the assessee for failure to furnish along with the return statements in forms VIII-B and XII-A as prescribed by Rule 15(4) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Now, Rule 15(4) of the Rules provides that the return required to be furnished under Rule 15(1) shall be accompanied by the documents mentioned therein. The question as to whether failure to furnish documents, which have to be filed along with the return by virtue of Rule 15(4), would attract the penal provisions contained in Section 17(3) of the Act, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1971] 28 S.T.C. 247, and it was held that a penalty under Section 17(3) of the Act could not be imposed for failure to file with the return any document which is required by Rule 15(4) to be filed along with the return. Learned counsel for the Commissioner did not point out any reason for holding that the decision of this Court in Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1971] 28 S.T.C. 247 required to be reconsidered. In these circumstances, following the decision in Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1971] 28 S.T.C. 247, our answer to the question referred to this Court is that levy of penalty under Section 17(3) of the Act, on account of failure to furnish along with the return, statements under forms VIII-B and XII-A prescribed by Rule 15(4), is not justified.

4. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.


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