Skip to content


East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Shri Kishore Chand, Sales Tax Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Sales Tax
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.W. No. 1550 of 1982
Judge
Reported in[1983]53STC86(Delhi)
AppellantEast India Hotels Ltd.
RespondentShri Kishore Chand, Sales Tax Officer
Cases ReferredClaridges Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer
Excerpt:
- .....preventing the refund to which the petitioner is legitimately entitled. 2. we are quashing the penalty imposed because we are of the view that the penalty has been imposed for no other reason than to somehow prevent refund to which the petitioner had become entitled by virtue of assessment orders. it is quite apparent that the motivating factor was what we have stated above as the amounts by and large go inside. further we are of the view that it has not been shown that there is any means read which could be attributed to the petitioner and thereforee the question of levy of penalty does not arise. we, thereforee, make the rule absolute, quash the order the penalty and direct the refund as claimed forthwith. the petitioner will be entitled to interest on the refund in accordance with.....
Judgment:

1. For the reasons already given by us in (C.W. No. 3044 of 1982) East India Hotels Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [1983] 53 STC 85 and (C.W. No. 979 of 1982) Claridges Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [1983] 53 STC 83 which we need not repeat, we quash the impugned order imposing penalty and thereby preventing the refund to which the petitioner is legitimately entitled.

2. We are quashing the penalty imposed because we are of the view that the penalty has been imposed for no other reason than to somehow prevent refund to which the petitioner had become entitled by virtue of assessment orders. It is quite apparent that the motivating factor was what we have stated above as the amounts by and large go inside. Further we are of the view that it has not been shown that there is any means read which could be attributed to the petitioner and thereforee the question of levy of penalty does not arise. We, thereforee, make the rule absolute, quash the order the penalty and direct the refund as claimed forthwith. The petitioner will be entitled to interest on the refund in accordance with law. The petitioner would also be entitled to costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 550.


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