9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (1) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,00,255. The total tax came to Rs. 39,793.26 out of which purchase tax was Rs. 6,059,83. Purchase turnover was not shown in the returns nor tax paid on it. The dealer s explanation was that the oil mill was started with effect from 1st July, 1966 and he did not know that purchases from unregistered dealers for pressing of oil are liable to purchase tax. As soon as the position became known to appellant the deposited the tax. The assessing authority did not consider this explanation reasonable and observed that the Sales Tax Act had been enacted for a long time and ignorance of his provisions was not proper. The return were found false and penalty of Rs. 500 was imposed upon the dealer. The order of the assessment was considered to be er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be considered to be erroneous an hence cannot be revised by the commissioner. It we also argued that the Language of the section clearly shows that the order which can be revised is the orders of assumed and not the order of penalty. This contention cannot be accepted, s.39 (2) lays down:- " 39 (2) The Commissioner may of his own motion or on information received call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act if he considers that any order passed therein is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of there revenue, he may after giving the dealer or person an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order threon as the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be considered erroneous. It was pointed out that the oil mill was started on 1st July, 1966 and the dealer did not know that purchase-tax had to be paid. It was only because of this bona fide belief that purchase-tax was not deposited but as soon as the correct position was known the dealer came forward and deposited tax worth Rs. 5,93 even before assessment was made and notice regarding penalty u/s 43 was issued. There is some force in this contention. The assessment record shows that this purchase-tax was deposited on 29th March,1973 whereas the assessment was made on 21st March, 1973, and notice regarding penalty u/s 43 was issued on 23rd May, 1973, It is also seen that sales tax amounting to Rs. 34, 6000 was properly deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
